S.°^5,    'C  . 


<^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    by  OA  <S.y^  V'N-^X  \J\j  .  V^C\\^\<' 


Division 
Section 


*     MAR  231910      * 


THREE        V5j^ 


r-^  t  -*  -.^- 


fl 


<e/rt 


A- 


Bi 


INQUIRIES 


1.  Into  the  Scriptural  Doctrine  ccncerning  the 

DEVIL  AND  SATAN. 


2.  The  Estent  of  Duration,  expressed  ty  the  terms 

OLIM,  AION,  AND  AIONIOS, 

RENDERED  EVERLASTING,  &c.  &c.  IN  THE  BIBLE, 

AND  ESPECIALLY  WHEN  APPLIED  TO  PUNISHMENT, 


3.  The  ItJe-w  Testamen.t  Doctrine  concerning  the 

POSSESSION  OF  DEVILS. 


By    WALTER    BALFOUR, 

OF    CHARLESTOAYN,   MASS. 


THIRD  EDITION. 


PROVIDENCE : 
PUBLISHED    BY    Z.     BAKER 

GOSPEL    MESSENGER    OFFICE, 

1842, 


Entered  According-  to  Act  of  Congress,  m  the  year  1842,  by 
WALTER    BALFOUR, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  IMassachusetts. 


Providence :  Benjamin  F.  Moore,  Book,  Job,  Card  and  Fancy  Printer. 


i^ 


CONTENTS. 

PART  I. 
Introduction  ....  -         Page  v, 

Section  i.  Common  opinions  of  the  Devil  and  Satan  briefly 

stated  .....  13 

Sect.  ii.      Remarks  on  Genesis  iii.  showing  that  the  serpent 

which  deceived  Eve  was  not  a  fallen  angel  19 

Sect,  hi.  All  the  texts  m  the  Old  Testement  where  the 
original  word  Shaitan,  or  Satan  occurs,  consid- 
ered -----  35 

Sect,  iv.  The  opinion  that  the  Devil  or  Satan  is  a  real 
being,  with  other  connected  opinions,  shown 
to  have  their  origin  in  heathenism  -  64 

Sect.  v.      All  the  passages  in  the  New  Testamen  where  the 

term  Satan  occurs,  considered  -  -  97 

Sect.  vi.     All  the  passages  where  the  original  word  Diabolos, 

translated  Devil  is  used,  considered  -         115 

Sect.  vii.  All  the  passages  considered  in  which  the  terms 

Devil  and  Satan  are  used  synonymously     -         146 

Sect.  viii.  All  the  texts  considered  where  the  Devil  is  sup- 
posed to  be  called  the  evil  one,  the  tempter,  the 
great  dragon,  the  serpent,  and  old  serpent,  the 
princs  of  this  world,  the  prince  of  the  power  of 
the  air,  and  the  god  of  this  world  -  161 

Sect.  ix.     Facts  stated,  showing  that  the  Devil  is  not  a  fallen 

angel,  or  a  real  being  -  -  .         172 

Sect.  x.      Objections  considered  -  -  -  182 

Slct.  XI.  Concluding  remarks,  pointing  out  the  evils  which 
have  arisen  from  the  common  opinions  enter- 
tained of  the  Devi]  and  Satan  -  -     19Q 


IV  CONTENTS. 


^*  xO 


Sect,  i.  ..^AlWtlieigtQxLs  noticed  wlierqgpiimtoccTirs^n  the        • 
Old  Testament,  but  is  rendered  by  xvords  which 
do  not  express  or  imply  endless  duration  197 

Sf.ct.  II.      All  the  passages  noticed  where  Olim  is  used,  and  '\ 

rendered  by  words  which  convey  the  idea  of 
endless  duration  -  -  -  20;jl 

Sect,  hi.  All  the  texts  where  Olim  occurs,  is  rendered  by 
words  wliich  convey  the  idea  of  endless  dura- 
tion, and  applied  to  punishment,  particularly 
considered  ....  033 

Sect.  iv.     General  remarks  on  Aionand  Aionios,as  used  in 

the  New  Testament  -  -  -  243 

Sect.  v.  All  the  places  noticed  where  Aion  and  Aioiiios 
are  rendered  ages,  course,  never,  forever,  ever- 
more, eternal,  everlasting;  but  which  have  no 
relation  to  punishment  -  -  '25ii 

Sect.  vi.  All  the  places  where  Aion  and  Aionios  are  ren- 
dered world,  considered  -  -  26'> 

Sect.  vij.  All  the  pl-Tces  where  Aion  find  Aionios  arc  used 
to  express  the  duration  of  punishment,  particu- 
larly considered,  in  whatever  way  rendered  in 
the  comncon  version  -  -  -  308 

Sect-  viii.  Concluding  remarks  on  Olim,  Aion  and  Aionios, 
throughout  the  Bible,  whether  applied  to  God, 
to  life,  or  punishment  -  -  -         343 

PART  III. 

An  iNQcfRv  into  the  possession  of  devils  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament ^^tt 


if 


INTRODUCTION. 


Lv  presenting  the  following  pages  to  the  public,  were  any 
apology  necessary,  I  would  make  it  in  the  words  of  Professor 
Stuart  "to  Dr.  Miller.  He  says,  p.  12,  13.  of  his  Letters,  "  it  is 
just  as  much  our  individual  duty  now,  to  bring  every  principle 
of  the  creed  of  the  Protestant  churches  to  the  test  of  the  divine 
word,  as  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Reformers  to  bring  that  of  the 
Catholics  to  the  test  of  Scripture.  This  position  is  absolutely 
certain  ;  unless  we  can  prove  that  the  formers  of  the  Protestant 
symbols  were  inspired.  If  they  were  not,  they  may  have  erred 
in  some  things  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  important  to  us,  if  possible,  to 
know  in  what  they  have  erred.  But  how  shall  we,  or  how  can 
we  know  this,  unless  their  creeds  are  subjected,  anew  and  re- 
peatedly, to  the  test  of  the  Scriptures,  &c. 

"  So  long  as  we  profess  to  be  Protestants,  and  of  course,  pro- 
fess to  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  so  long,  if  we  act  consistently,  we  believe  in 
the  symbols  of  faith  which  we  receive,  only  because  we  find 
them  supported  by  the  Scriptures.  It  is  not  only  lawful  then  to 
put  'them  to  the  test  ;  but  it  is  an  imperious  duty  for  every  man 
to  do  it,  who  is  able  to  do  it.  There  may  be  a  show  of  modesty 
and  humility  in  receiving  what  others  have  believed,  without 
examination  and  without  scrutiny  ;  but  in  every  case,  where 
there  is  ability  to  investigate  and  bring  to  the  Scripture  test,  a 
failure  to  do  it  must  arise  from  undue  regard  to  the  authority  of 
fellible  men,  or  from  mere  inaction — from  absolute  sloth."  &c. 

According  to  my  ability  I  have  endeavored  to  bring  to  the 
Scripture  test  three  very  important  articles  in  the  Protestant 
creeds.  Other  articles,  particularly  those  noticed  in  Part  1. 
Section  iv.  intruded  themselves  in  the  course  of  my  researches, 
and  it  was  deemed  proper  to  give  them  a  due  share  of  attention, 
being  very  closely  connected  with  my  subject. 

It  may  be  thought  by  some,  that  if  the  things  stated  in  Part  i. 
Sect.  4.  be  true,  the  Second  Part  is  a  superfluous  discussion  ;  for 
it  follows,  of  course,  that  endless  punishment  cannot  be  true. 
This  we  admit  ;  but  the  texts  where  everlasting  is  applied  to 
punishment,  will  not  be  given  up  by  many  as  teaching  endless 
punishment,  until  some  rational  Scriptural  interpretation  is  pre- 
sented, showing  that  their  former  views  of  them  are  incorrect. 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

1  here  can  speak  from  experience  ;  for  I  never  would  have 
relinquished  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  unless  I  had 
come  to  see  how  such  texts  could  be'  ftiirly  explained  as  not 
teaching  it.  I  have  felt  the  power  of  such  previous  views  on 
Vny  own  mind,  and  make  allowance  for  others  in  the  same  con- 
dition. On  this  account,  if  my  explanations  of  the  texts  where 
everlasting  is  applied  to  punishment  be  correct,  the  Second  Part, 
so  far  from  being  superfluous,  is  highly  necessary.  Many  of  my 
former  friends  have  wondered,  how  I  could  embrace  my  present 
views  with  such  texts  staring  me  in  the  face."  One  object  with 
me,  in  the  Second  Part  has  been,  to  show,  that  I  did  not  shut 
my  eyes  to  these  texts,  but  obtaining  very  different  views  of 
them,  embraced  my  present  opinions.  W^hether  my  present 
views  be  correct,  they  can  now  see  and  judge  for  themselves. 
If  I  have  embraced  error,  they  are  requested  to  have  the  good- 
ness to  correct  it. 

In  tJie  following  pages,  we  have  expressed  our  opinions  frankly 
and  sincerely,  and  appealed  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  test  of  truth. 
The  author  "hopes,  that  t]\e  spirit  in  which  his  remarks  are  made 
can  give  offence  to  none.  He  has  studied  to  avoid  all  harsh 
language,  convinced  that  man's  wrath  can  never  work  the  righte- 
ousness of  God.  If  he  has  in  any  instance  turned  aside  from  this 
path,  he  shall  regret  it  much  more  than  any  of  his  readers,  for  his 
object  is  to  convince,  not  to  irritate.  Should  it  be  said,  some  of 
the  opinions  controverted  are  not  held  now  by  our  orthodox 
bretln-en,  nor  durst  any  preacher  avow  them,  without  forfeiting 
his  station.  We  are  glad  to  hear  of  this,  but  doubt  if  it  is  gene- 
rally true  ;  and  certainly,  we  have  never  heard,  that  anv  public 
disavowal  of  them  has  been  made.  If  such  opinions  are  not  held 
now,  why  not  publicly  denounce  them  .•*  For  it  will  not  be  de- 
nied, that  they  have  been  held  by  Calvinists  in  past  ages.  At 
any  rate,  we  would  say,  it  has  been  far  from  our  heart  to  misre- 
present the  opinions  of  our  brethren. 

Shoul'd  any  one  reply  to  the  following  pages,  the  author  begs 
leave  to  say,  that  it  will  be  of  no  consequence  to  point  out  defects 
in  his  manner  of  discussing  the  subject,  or,  to  shi)w  that  he  has 
misunderstood  some  texts  which  have  come  under  his  considera- 
tion. As  to  the  first,  had  liis  time  and  avocations  permitted,  he 
might  have  rendered  the  work  freer  of  defects.  As  to  the  last, 
thougli  he  has  used  all  means  in  his  power  to  interpret  the  Scrip- 
tur(;s  correctly,  yet  it  would  be  surprising,  if  in  no  instance  he 
Jiad  misunderstood  the  sacred  writers-  A  reply  in«M-(dy  bearing 
on  these  points,  lie  will  pass  over  in  silence.  But,  li(>  will  listen 
with  attention  to  whatever  maybe  advanced.  He  will  attend  to 
argument  and  cvid(Mice  drawn  from  Scripture,  come  from  what 
quarter  they  may,  whether  stated  in  a  good  or  batl  temper  of  mind. 
If  convinced  he  is  wrong,  he  will  be  silent,  but  if  not,  he  will 
claim  the  privilege  of  stating  iiis  reasons  for  his  dissent.     Who- 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

ever  undertakes  to  reply,  we  beg  of  them  to  give  us  proofs  and 
not  mere  assertions.,  for  what  they  may  advance,  and  to  pay  par- 
ticuhir  attention  also  to  what  we  have  advanced  in  Parti.  Sect.  4. 
To  point  out  defects,  without  fairly  meeting  the  grand  points  at 
issue  will  be  considered  no  answer. 

I  make  no  apology  for  availing  myself  of  quotations  from  vari- 
ous authors  in  the  course  of  my  remarks,  for  they  are  chiefly 
taken  from  writers  whose  religious  creeds  embraced  the  opinions 
controverted.  None  of  them  are  taken  from  professed  Universa- 
lists,  for  by  most  people  their  testimony  would  be  deemed  excep- 
tionable, however  well  supported  by  evidence.  The  testimonies 
quoted  in  favor  of  my  opinions,  are  from  men  competent  to  judge, 
and  in  high  repute  as  critics  and  commentators  among  orthodox 
people.  They  are  quoted,  not  to  give  sanction  to  my  views  by 
the  weight  and  number  of  their  names,  but  on  account  of  the 
evidence  which  they  produce. 

In  the  present  work,  the  strongest  texts  in  favor  of  endless 
punishment  are  considered,  and  attention  given  them  in  propor- 
tion to  the  degree  of  stress  laid  on  them  in  favor  of  this  doctrine, 
in  some  instances,  we  have  referred  to  our  former  Inquiry  into 
the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus,  and  Gehenna,  for  an  illustra- 
tion, which  the  reader  will  please  consult.  And  in  ail  cases,  we 
hope  the  texts  referred  to,  will  be  turned  to  and  read,  as  they 
confirm  or  illustrate  the  sentiments  advocated. 

The  author  is  deeply  sensible,  that  the  sentiments  advanced 
are  very  unpopular,  and  will  be  condemned  by  many  without  a 
hearing.  He  is  sorry  for  such  persons  on  their  own  account;  for 
this  cannotstop  the  advance  of  light  and  knowledge  in  the  present 
day,  anjMiiore  than  sleeping  all  day  can  stop  the  sun  in  his  course. 
If  what  I  have  advanced  be  true,  it  must  prevail  against  all 
opposition,  for  great  is  the  truth,  and  must  prevail.  If  my 
sentiments  are  false,  the  sooner  they  are  refuted,  neglected,  and 
forgotten,  the  better.  If  this  can  be  done,  it  no  doubt  will  be 
done,  and  to  the  doing  of  it  we  shall  add  our  hearty  amen. 


INOTICE  TO  THE  THIRD  EDITION. 

In  this  third  edition,  a  third  partis  added — "On  the  posses- 
sions of  devils  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament."  Those  who 
comphiined  of  the  want  of  this,  in  the  two  former  editions,  will 
here  find  it  supplied.  This  addition  has  considerahly  increased 
the  size  of  the  book,  being  unwilling  to  abridge  the  other  parts 
to  make  room  for  it.  We  have  seen  no  reason  to  change  our 
opinions,  or  to  alter  them,  and  of  course  they  remain  in  this  as  in 
former  editions.  All  the  difference  is,  we  have  somewhat  abridg- 
ed the  introduction,  left  out  a  few  sentences  and  words  of  no 
importance  to  the  argument,  and  made  a  few  verbal  alterations 
in  the  phraseology.  But  these  are  of  so  little  importance,  that 
we  deem  them  iiardly  deserving  this  brief  notice.  We  hope  the 
work  is  improved,  and  is  rendered  more  perfect  by  the  addition 
made  to  it.  In  this  addition,  the  subject  is  discussed  very  briefly 
from  what  it  might  have  been,  for  we  deemed  it  most  profitable 
to  confine  our  attention  to  the  argument  from  Scripture.  By  this 
test  we  wish  our  .^ientimcnts  to  stand  or  fall.  If  they  are  unscrip- 
tural,  no  person  hitherto  has  attempted  to  refute  them  from  the 
Bible.  The  attempt  ought  to  be  nnide  soon,  to  benefit  me,  for  I 
shall  ere  long  go  the  way  of  all  the  earth,  and  be  beyond  cither 
men's  praise  or  their  blame.  What  thou  doest  then  "  do  quickly" 
for  "there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  wisdom  in  the  grave." 


AN  INQUIRY 


fjVTO  THE  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING 
THE  J) EVIL  AND  ^ATAN. 


SECTION  L 

t 
C;OMMON    OPINIONS    ENTERTAINED    OF    THE    DEVIL  AND 
SATAN    BRIEFLY    STATED. 

The  opinions  entertained,  concerning  a  being  called 
the  Devil  a^id  Satan,  are  many.  We  shall  give  a  brief 
summary  of  them  under  the  following  particulars : 

1st,  The  Unity  of  the  Devil.  It  is  the  common 
opinion,  that  there  is  but  one  being  properly  called  tAe 
devil.  The  unity  of  God  is  not  more  certainly  be^ 
lieved,  than  that  the  Devil  or  Satan  is  one.  Though 
God  is  said  by  many  to  be  three  persons  in  one  being, 
yet  the  devil  has  never  been  supposed  to  be  more  than 
one  person  in  one  being.  Dr.  Campbell,  Dissert.  6, 
says,  "nor  can  any  thing  be  clearer  from  Scripture 
than  that,  though  the  demons  are  innumerable,  there  is 
but  one  devil  in  the  universe," 

2d.  The  Origin  of  the  Devil.  The  common  opinr 
ions  about  this  are -—that  he  \vas  originally,  one  of  the 
angels  of  God  in  heaven.     God  did  not  create  him  3 


14  AN    INQ^UIRY PART    1. 

devil,  but  be  became  so,  by  bis  own  sin  and  rebellion. 
It  is  also  believed,  that  be  drew  a  nuiltitude  of  the 
heavenly  bests  into  rebellion  with  him,  who  have 
shared  his  fate,  are  called  his  angels,  and  that  he  has 
become  their  chief.  His  sin  is  supposed  to  have  been 
pride  ;  but  how,  or  about  what  it  arose,  we  have  never 
seen  properly  defined.  The  time  is  not  ascertained 
when  all  this  took  place;  but  it  must  have  been  before 
Adam  and  Eve  sinned,  as  he  is  said  to  have  been  their 
seducer.  Supposing  all  this  to  be  true,  we  can  an- 
swer the  long  agitated  question — "  whence  cameth 
evil  ?"  It  came  from  heaven.  It  originated  amonii; 
the  holy  angels  of  God.  But  how  it  could  orig?^^atein 
heaven,  and  among  such  holy  beings,  I  must  leave 
for  others  to  explain.  Admitting  such  opinions  true, 
}  ask,  if  sin  once  originated  there  and  among  such 
beings,  why  may  it  not  again,  yea,  often  ;  and  why 
not  extend  it  to  all  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  ?  Why 
may  they  not  all  finally  become  devils  by  sin  and  rebel- 
lion against  the  Lord  ?  What  is  the  security  given 
that  not[iingof  a  like  nature  shall  ever  take  place  again 
in  heaven  ? 

3d.  His  expulsion  from  heaven  and  his  place  of 
ahode  since.  How  long  the  devil  maintained  his  place 
in  heaven  after  he  sinned,  we  have  never  seen  stated. 
All  agree,  that  he  was  cast  out  of  heaven,  but  where 
he  was  cast  to,  and  where  his  abode  has  been  since, 
very  various  opinions  are  entertained.  Some  say  he 
was  cast  down  to  hell,  and  has  been  there  in  chains  of 
darkness  ever  since.  Others  allege,  that  his  abode  is 
in  the  air,  or  our  atmosphere.  The  most  general  opin- 
ion is,  that  he  walks  about  in  our  world  like  a  roaring 
lion  seeking  whom  he  may  devour,  and  will  continue  to 
do  so  until  the  consummation  of  all  things.  Some  have 
thought,  that  he  has  his  residence  in  the  heart  of  every 


AN    IN(^UIRY PART    I.  15 

wicked  man,  and  is  the  cause  of  so  much  evil  being  de- 
vised by  it.  These  opinions  cannot  all  be  true,  which 
creates  a  suspicion  they  may  all  be  false. 

4th.  The  nature  and  character  of  the  Devil.  The 
devil  is  universally  believed  to  be  a  spirit.  God  is 
not  more  certainly  believed  to  be  a  good  spirit,  than 
he  is  believed  to  be  an  evil  spirit.  Not  one  good 
quality  is  supposed  to  be  in  his  nature  or  char- 
acter. On  the  contrary,  every  evil,  and  that  in  the 
highest  degree,  is  found  in  him.  He  is  a  perfect  com- 
pound of  all  that  is  evil,  and  the  irreconcilable  enemy 
of  God  and  man.  As  he  is  incapable  of  being  made 
better,  it  is  believed  he  is  so  bad  tliat  he  cannot  be 
made  worse.  To  say  a  person  or  thing  is  as  bad  as 
the  devil,  is  saying  the  worst  that  can  be  said  concern- 
ing them. 

5th.  The  extraordinary  powers  ascribed  to  him. — 
Many  people  consider  him  almost  omniscient,  omni- 
present, and  omnipotent.  He  is  supposed  to  know  the 
thoughts,  words,  and  actions  of  all  men  ;  that  he  is  in 
all  parts  of  the  world  at  the  same  time;  and  effects 
things  by  his  power,  little  inferior  to  God  himself.  God 
is  the  only  being  in  the  universe  who  is  able  to  control 
him.  He  can  assume  any  form,  shape,  or  color;  and 
tliough  an  angel  of  darkness,  can  transform  himself  Into 
an  angel  of  light.  One  would  be  almost  led  to  think, 
he  had  greatly  increased  his  powers  by  his  sin  and 
rebellion,  for  no  good  angel  is  ever  represented  as  pos- 
sessing such  extraordinary  powers  as  Christians  ascribe 
to  the  devil.  If  his  powers  have  been  curtailed  by  his 
rebellion  against  God,  what  must  they  have  been  be- 
fore it  ? 

6th.  How  the  Devil  is  employed.  It  would  be  an 
endless  task  to  enumerate  all  the  various  work  in  which 
he  is  supposed  to  have  engaged,  since  his  expulsion 


16  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

from  heaven.  One  of  the  first  things  he  engaged  in, 
was  to  tempt  our  first  parents  to  sin,  and  thereby  ruined 
them  and  all  their  posterity.  Ever  since,  he  has  been 
seducing  every  son  and  daughter  of  Adam  to  all  kinds 
of  sin,  fomenting  all  sorts  of  mischief,  and  producing 
misery  in  our  world.  He  is  supposed  to  be  walking 
about  seeking  whom  he  may  devour,  deceives  the 
whole  world,  and  accuses  the  very  best  of  men  before 
God.  He  infuses  evil  thoughts  and  desires  into  men's 
minds,  and  is  ever  ready  to  assist  them  in  the  execu- 
tion of  their  wicked  purposes,  and  the  gratification  of 
their  sinful  lusts  and  passions.  He  is  supposed  not  only 
to  inflict  many  severe  bodily  diseases,  but  to  harrass  the 
mind,  so  as  to  drive  persons  to  distraction  and  suicide. 
He  is  believed  to  have  been  the  cause  of  all  .Job's 
afflictions,  to  have  bound  a  woman  eighteen  years  with 
an  infirmity,  and  urged  Judas  on  in  his  course  of  wick- 
edness until  he  betrayed  Jesus,  and  was  finally  led  to 
hang  himself.  He  is  also  allowed  to  blind  men's  minds 
about  the  gospel,  and  harden  their  hearts,  and  is  at 
work  in  the  heart  of  every  child  of  disobedience.  He 
not  only  picks  up  the  seed  of  the  word  when  sown, 
lest  men  should  believe  it  and  be  saved,  but  those  who 
do  believe  it,  are  the  objects  of  his  particular  malice, 
whom  though  he  cannot  ruin  forever,  he  is  determined 
to  render  as  miserable  as  possible.  All  wicked  men 
are  his,  and  his  care  is,  to  keep  them  under  his 
power  and  dominion.  Some  marvellous  accounts  have 
been  given,  of  his  torturing  and  torEiiCnting  good  peo- 
ple, and  of  some  who  sold  themselves  soul  and  body  to 
him.  At  the  stipulated  time,  he  has  come  and  carried 
them  away  bodily  to  hell.  It  is  the  belief  of  some, 
that  at  death,  the  devil  carries  off  the  souls  of  wicked 
men  to  the  same  place.  Those  who  wish  to  inform 
themselves  more  fully  may  consult  Boston's    works. 


AN     INQ,UIRr PART    1.  17 

Edwards,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Godwin,  and  many   other 
authors  on  this  subject. 

Ttli.  The  various  names  hy  ivhich  he  is  designated. 
What  the  devil's  name  was  before  he  sinned  in  heaven 
we  have  never  been  able  to  ascertain  ;  but  if  we  cannot 
ascertain  who  or  what  the  devil  is,  it  is  not  for  want  of 
names,  which  are  supposed  to  distinguish  him  from 
every  other  being.  He  iy  called  in  Scripture,  as 
many  suppose,  satan,  the  devil,  the  evil  one,  the 
tempter,  the  old  serpent,  the  god  of  this  world,  the 
prince  of  this  world,  and  the  prince  of  the  power  of 
the  air.  These  are  his  principal  titles,  with  a  few 
others  which  are  of  less  consequence,  and  do  not  re- 
quire any  particular  notice.  He  has  also  a  great 
variety  of  vulgar  names,  which  to  put  on  paper, 
would  only  be  to  promote  the  laughter  of  fools,  which 
is  no  object  with  me  in  writing.  If  such  a  being  does 
exist,  we  are  called  to  weep,  rather  than  to  laugh.  If 
he  does  not,  I  wish  soberly  and  seriously  to  expose 
such  a  false  and  pernicious  opinion.  We  protest 
against  the  common  use  of  such  names  in  daily  conver- 
sation, whether  the  people  believe  or  disbelieve  his  ex- 
istence. One  thing  we  remark,  that  all  such  vulgar 
names  are  desio;ned  to  desio;nale  a  real  beino;  or  fallen 
angel,  by  people  who  thus  use  them. 

8th.  His  endless  existence  and  future  prospects.  It 
is  not  only  believed  the  devil  does  exist,  but  that 
he  will  forever  exist,  the  same  wicked  and  malignant 
being.  It  is  the  common  opinion,  that  no  Saviour  has, 
or  ever  will  be  provided  for  him.  He  is  considered  be- 
yond the  limits  of  God's  mercy.  This  door  is  forever 
closed  to  him,  and  his  repentance  and  return  to  his  for- 
mer allegiance  and  happiness  is  considered  utterly 
hopeless.  Nor  is  it  thought  that  he  will  ever  desire  it, 
but  would  scorn    such    a  proposal ;  for  his    mind  is 


18  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

made  up,  rather  to  reign  in  bell  than  serve  in  heaven. 
Some  have  held  the  opinion,  he  will  finally  be  restored, 
but  will  be  the  last  being  in  the  universe,  who  shall  be 
delivered  from  future  misery. 

But  it  is  the  general  opinion,  that  however  miserable 
the  devil  is,  he  has  nothing  better  to  hope  for ;  nor  is 
he  concerned  for  his  miserable  condition.  As  God  can^ 
not,  or  willnotd\iev  it,  so  he  disdains  to  complain,  or  to 
sue  for  mercy.  With  such  an  endless,  dreary  prospect  of 
intolerable  misery  before  him,  yet  he  scorns  to  submit, 
and  his  stout  heart,  supported  by  malice  and  revenge, 
is  consoled,  that  if  God  is  to  be  his  eternal  tormentor, 
to  the  same  duration  he  shall  be  the  tormentor  of  a 
large  portion  of  mankind. 

Such  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  common  opinions 
entertained  of  the  Devil  and  Satan,  and  are  by 
some  still  preached  to  the  world.  It  is  true, 
the  ancient  zeal  for  such  opinions  has  considerably 
abated,  but  still  enough  remains  to  prevent  me  from 
being  a  favorite  with  the  religious  public  for  calling 
them  in  question.  From  early  life  such  opinions  have 
been  imbibed;  they  have  been  nourished  and  strength- 
ened by  religious  instruction  in  after  life  ;  and  from  the 
universal  influence  of  public  opinion  in  their  favor,  peo- 
ple have  been  deterred  from  inquiring — are  they  true! 
But,  let  any  sober-minded  man  sit  down  and  seriously 
reflect  on  such  opinions,  and  we  think  he  must  be  sat- 
isfied they  cannot  all  be  true.  They  are  at  variance 
with  each  other,  and  some  of  them  are  incredible  and 
literally  impossible,  unless  the  devil  be  nearly  equal  to 
God  himself.  When  brought  to  the  test  of  Scripture 
and  examined,  we  think  they  will  be  found  wanting; 
having  no  better  foundation  than  the  doctrine  of  witch- 
craft, which  is  now  almost  exploded.  The  evidence  of 
this  we  hope  will  appear  in  succeeding  Sections. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  19 


SECTION  II. 

REMARKS  ON  GEN.  ill.  SHOWING,  THAT  THE  SERPENT 
WHICH  DECEIVED  EYE  WAS  NOT  A  FALLEN  ANGEL. 

In  considering  the  Scripture  doctrine  concerning  the 
devil  and  satan.,  Gen.  iii.  first  claims  our  attention. 
Those  who  are  not  famiharwith  its  contents  will  please 
turn  to  it,  and  read  it.  The  common  opinion  is,  that 
the  serpent  which  deceived  Eve,  was  a  fallen  angel, 
and  is  throughout  the  Bible  called  the  devil  and  satan. 
This  is  taken  for  granted,  and  it  will  be  considered  vaia 
and  impious  to  call  it  in  question.  But  I  shall  pro- 
ceed to  state  facts  and  arguments,  proving,  that  in 
whatever  way  this  chapter  ought  to  be  understood,  it 
gives  no  countenance  to  such  opinions. 

1st.  Moses  in  the  two  preceding  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis, makes  no  mention  of  an  angel,  who  fell  from  heaven. 
If  such  an  event  had  happened,  he  was  either  igno- 
rant of  it,  was  not  authorised,  or  deemed  it  unnecessary 
to  mention  it.  We  may  with  equal  truth  assert,  that 
God  created  the  devil,  as  assert,  that  an  angel  had  be- 
come so,  from  any  thing  Moses  has  said  in  these  chap- 
ters. But  ought  not  this  to  have  been  announced  in 
them,  if  it  be  true,  that  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  as 
the  cause  of  the  fall  of  man  ? 

2d.  It  is  a  fact  equally  indisputable,  that  Moses  in 
this  account,  does  not  say  that  the  serpent  was  a  fallen 
angel.  It  is  from  what  he  does  say,  that  we  can  learn 
what  he  believed,  and  not  from  his  silence  on  the  sub- 


20  AN    IN<^UIRY PART    I. 

ject.  It  is  not  easily  conjectured,  how  such  an  opinion 
came  to  be  inferred  from  this  account.  The  circum- 
stances related  lead  to  a  very  different  conclusion. — 
Observe  the  connexion  between  the  second  and 
third  chapters.  In  chapter  ii.  19,  20,  it  is  said, 
''And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every 
heast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
brought  them  unto  Adam,  to  see  what  he  would 
call  them  :  and  whatsoever  Adam  called  every  Irv- 
ing creature,  that  was  the  name  thereof.  And  Adam 
gave  names  to  all  cattle,  and  to  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
to  every  beast  of  the  field,  but  for  Adam  there  was  not 
found  an  help  meet  for  him."  The  third  chapter  be- 
gins thus — "  Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle  than  any 
heast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God  had  made." — 
Any  one  reading  these  two  passages,  would  conclude 
that  the  serpent  was  a  beast  of  the  field,  whicli  the 
Lord  brought  to  Adam,  and  which  he  had  named  ser- 
fcnt.  The  connexion  leads  to  this  conclusion,  unless 
we  suppose  God  brought  a  fallen  angel  among  the 
beasts  of  the  field  to  Adam,  and  that  he  gave  him  this 
name.     But  it  would  be  foolish  to  assert  this. 

Again,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  woman  did  not 
accuse  a  fallen  angel  as  her  deceiver,  verse  13.  God 
says  to  her — "  What  is  this  that  thou  hast  done  ?"  She 
answers  him,  "the  serpent  beguiled  me  and  I  did  eat." 
Had  either  Eve  or  Moses  believ'ed  such  an  evil  being 
was  the  cause  of  her  disobedience,  would  they  have 
imputed  it  to  a  beast  of  the  field  ?  When  God 
made  inquisition,  he  traces  the  evil  from  Adam 
to  the  woman,  and  from  the  woman  to  the  serpent, 
and  here  both  stop.  But  had  there  been  any  other 
agent  concerned,  I  ask,  would  either  of  them  ha/e 
slopped  here?  But  again,  Moses  does  not  represent 
the  serpent  as  a  fallen  angel  in  the  punishment  inflicted. 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I,  21 

verses  14,  15.  It  is  evident  God  calls  the  deceiver  of 
Eve,  serpent.  If  a  fallen  angel  used  this  reptile  as  a 
cover  for  his  deception,  it  is  certain  he  is  not  accused 
of  the  crime,  nor  doe-s  he  suffer  any  punishment.  From 
any  thing  said  in  the  account,  we  may  as  justly  accuse 
the  angel  Gabriel  of  deceiving  Eve,  as  a  fallen  angel, 
and  the  punishment  inflicted,  fell  on,  and  was  as  much 
suited  to  the  former  as  to  the  latter.  Was  this  fallen 
angel  to  go  upon  his  belly  and  to  eat  dust  all  the  days 
of  his  life  ? 

3d.  But  another  fact  is,  Moses  in  no  part  of  bis  wri- 
tings, gives  us  any  information  about  an  angel  who  fell 
from  heaven  and  had  become  a  devil.  Let  any  one  read 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  he  must  be  convinced, 
that  such  a  being  is  not  once  mentioned  by  him  under 
any  name.  Had  Moses  only  recognized  the  ex- 
istence of  such  an  evil  spirit,  there  might  be  some 
ground  for  supposing  that  he  used  the  serpent  as 
a  tool  to  effect  the  deception  of  Eve.  But  his 
entire  silence  on  this  subject,  throughout  his  whole 
writings,  forbids  such  a  supposition.  For  m.ore  than 
two  thousand  years  then,  such  an  evil  being  was 
unknown  among  men.  Was  Moses  afraid  to  speak  out 
on  this  subject  ?  But  pray,  what  temptation  had  he  to 
conceal  such  information  ?  Let  any  candid  man  say, 
if  Moses  knew  such  an  evil  being  existed,  had  de- 
ceived Eve,  was  such  an  enemy  to  God  and  the  human 
race,  whether  he  would  have  been  silent  about  him. 
Such  an  important  article  we  might  naturally  expect, 
would  be  conspicuous  in  his  writings.  But  will  any 
man  affirm  that  this  is  the  case  ? 

4th.  Another  fact  strongly  confirms  all  the  pre- 
ceding. No  Old  Testament  writer  says,  Moses  by 
the  serpent.  Genesis  iii.,  meant  a  fallen  angel. — 
They  never  speak  of  such  a  being  by  the  name  ser- 


22  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

pent,  so  that  all  foundation  for  such  a  supposition  is 
out  of  the  present  question.  But  1  ask,  had  they  be- 
lieved as  people  do  now,  would  this  have  been  the 
case  ?  It  is  true,  there  are  seme  texts  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, from  which  it  has  been  concluded  that  such  a 
being  is  called  satan.  These  will  be  fully  considered 
in  the  next  Section.  Here,  let  the  reader  only  notice, 
that  no  Old  Testament  writer  considered  the  serpent  a 
fallen  angel,  the  devil  of  Christians.  They  frequently 
use  the  term  serpent,  but  never  insinuate  that  a  fallen 
angel  used  this  reptile  in  deceiving  Eve.  For  four 
thousand  years,  then,  no  such  opinion  seems  to  have 
been  entertained  by  any  sacred  writer. 

5th.  What  shows  that  the  serpent.  Genesis  iii., 
\vas  not  a  fallen  angel  is,  in  the  Bible  there  are  both 
allusions  and  direct  references  to  the  account  of  Eve's 
deception  and  the  entrance  of  sin,  but  no  intimation  is 
given,  that  a  fallen  angel  was  the  cause  of  either.  We 
shall  briefly  notice  the  principal  of  them.  Paul,  2  Cor. 
xi  3,  says — -'But  I  fear  lest  by  any  means,  as  the 
serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtilty,  so  your 
minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is 
in  Christ." 

Paul  here  calls  the  deceiver  of  Eve  the  serpent,  as  Mo- 
ses did,  but  not  a  syllable  escapes  him,  that  the  devil  used 
this  beast  of  the  field  as  a  cover  for  his  deception.  If 
this  was  the  orthodox  belief  in  Paul's  day,  he  gave  no 
sanction  to  it  as  an  inspired  teacher.  He  agrees  with 
all  the  preceding  sacred  writers,  in  being  silent  about 
the  devil  seducing  our  first  parents.  But  if  Paul 
believed  this  doctrine,  is  it  not  strange,  that  in  a 
direct  reference  to  the  deception  of  Eve  by  the 
serpent,  he  should  give  no  intimation  that  such  a 
wicked  being  was  the  principal  agent?  But  again, 
Job  says,  chap.  xxxi.  33 — ''  If  I  covered  my  trans- 


AN    INQUIRY PAB.T    I.  23 

gressions  as  Adam  by  hiding  mine  iniquity  in  my  bo- 
som." But  instead  of  the  w  ords, ''  as  Adam,"  we  have 
in  the  margin,  "  after  the  manner  of  men."  But  al- 
lowino;  the  renderino-  in  the  text  correct,  Job  gives  us 
no  hint  that  he  beheved  an  evil  spirit  was  the  cause  of 
Adam's  sin.  Again,  in  Hosea  vi.  7,  it  is  said — '^but 
they  hke  men,  (in  the  margin  hke  Adam)  have  trans- 
gressed the  covenant."  But  a  more  direct  reference  we 
have,  Rom.  v.  12 — 14. — "  Wherefore  as  by  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so 
death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned  : 
for  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world  :  but  sin  is  not 
imputed  when  there  is  no  law.  Nevertheless,  death 
reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had 
not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression, 
who  is  the  figu/e  of  him  that  was  to  come."  Here  Paul 
expressly  declares,  that  by  one  man,  and  not  by  a  fallen 
angel,  sin  entered  the  world.  But  again,  he  says,  1 
Cor.  XV.  22.— '*  for  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  See  also  verses  45 — 
49.  But  still,  he  does  not  say  a  word  about  the  devil 
or  a  fallen  angel  having  any  concern  with  either  sin  or 
death  by  Adam.  In  1  Tim.  ii.  13,  14.  the  apos- 
tle directly  alludes  to  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis. — 
^'But  Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve.  And  Adam 
was  not  deceived,  but  the  woman,  being  deceived,  was 
in  the  transgression."  The  apostle  here  says.  Eve  was 
deceived,  but  not  a  word  about  her  being  deceived  by 
a  fallen  angel.  He  told  us,  2  Cor.  xi.  3,  that  the 
serpent  beguiled  her,  and  this  is  just  what  Eve  said 
herself,  "  the  serpent  beguiled  me,  and  I  did  eat." — 
Gen.  iii.  13. 

Such  are  the  references  made  in  Scripture,  to  the  ac- 
count given  us  by  Moses  in  the  third  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis, except  two  or  three  passages,  w^here  we  read  of  that 


24 


AN    INQUIRY PART 


old  serpent,  the  devil  and  satan.  These  will  be  con- 
sidered in  Section  viii. 

6th.  Bat  admitting  such  an  evil  spirit  did  exist, 
call  him  by  what  name  you  please,  how  is  the 
character  of  God  to  be  defended  in  not  forew^arning 
our  first  parents  against  his  evil  devices  ?  It  is  evi- 
dent, not  a  word  of  caution  was  afforded  them.  They 
have  to  learn  his  existence  by  the  mischief  he  does 
them,  and  if  God  gives  them  information  afterwards 
concerning  l)im,  it  comes  too  late  to  be  of  any  benefit 
to  them.  Was  God  ignorant  of  the  fall  of  this  angel 
from  heaven  ?  Or,  could  he  be  ig:norant  of  his  evil  de- 
vices, and  not  foresee  the  ruin  of  our  first  parents  by 
him?  This  is  impossible.  Are  w^e  then  to  conclude, 
God  concealed  the  knowledge  of  such  a  beinor  from 
them,  that  they  might  be  seduced  and  ruined  ? — 
I  should  rather  conclude  that  no  such  being  ex- 
isted, about  which  God  cculd  give  them  information. 
He  did  foresee  the  consequences  of  their  being  seduced, 
and  he  guarded  them  against  the  true  tempter  as  we 
shall  presently  see. 

7tl].  The  fall  of  an  angel  from  heaven,  and  be- 
coming a  devil,  is  certainly  a  very  remarkable 
event.  It  is  rendered  more  so,  by  its  connexion 
with  the  fall  of  man,  in  making  him  a  sinner,  and 
entailing,  according  to  many,  eternal  misery  on  his 
posterity.  The  very  nature  of  the  case  leads  us  to 
think,  that  Moses  would  have  related  the  lldl  of  this 
angel,  before  he  introduced  the  fall  of  man.  But  no- 
thing like  this  is  found,  nor  is  the  one  related  as  having 
any  connexion  with  the  other.  Moses  says  just  as  much 
about  the  ascent  of  a  devil  to  heaven,  and  becoming  a 
good  angel,  as  he  does  about  the  fall  of  an  angel  from 
heaven,  and  becoming  a  devil  ;  and  the  deception  of 
Eve,  is  just  as  much  ascribed  to  the  former  as  to  the 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  25 

latter.  Nor,  does  any  later  scripture  writer  teach  the 
doctrine  of  a  fallen  angel,  or  ascribe  the  fall  of  man  to 
his  evil  irfluence.  But  allowing  the  existence  of  such 
a  being  we  would  notice, 

8ih.  There  is  no  evidence  in  this  account,  that  a 
fallen  angel  knew  that  one  tree  of  the  garden  was  pro- 
hibited, and  it  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  a  mere 
serpent  could  know  it.  Did  God  inform  the  devil  about 
the  prohibition  ?  Or  was  he  present  when  it  was  given  ? 
It  does  not  appear  that  Eve  informed  him,  for  the  ser- 
pent began  the  conversation  with  her,  and  seems  to 
have  known  all  about  it.  This  very  circumstance,  re- 
presenting the  serpent  as  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
prohibition,  su(,rgests  that  Moses  merely  used  the 
serpent  to  represent  something  else,  which  will  ration^ 
ally  account  for  this. 

9th.  Admitting  for  a  moment,  that  the  devil  did  as- 
sume the  likeness  of  a  serpent,  how  does  this  accord 
with  the  policy  which  this  arch  deceiver  is  sup- 
posed to  possess  ?  For  his  advocates  affirm,  he 
can  assume  a  much  more  agreeable  likeness  than 
that  of  a  vile,  contemptible  reptile.  Besides,  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  chosen  this  appearance  often 
since,  for  people  represent  him  as  appearing  in  va- 
rious forms,  but  seldom  if  ever  in  that  of  a  serpent. 

10th.  Unless  we  believe  that  Eve  was  on  familiar 
terms  with  the  devil,  and  knew  that  serpents  spoke  and 
reasoned  in  those  days,  she  was  more  likely  to  be 
frightened  than  deceived.  A  speaking  serpent,  or  the 
devil  under  this  likeness,  would  terrify  the  most  coura- 
geous female  among  us.  But  Eve  show^ed  no  signs  of 
fear,  or  even  suspicion  on  this  occasion.  She  con- 
versed with  the  devil,  or  the  serpent,  with  as  much  ap- 
parent composure,  as  she  could  have  done  with  Adam. 
The  common  belief  makes  her,  a  perfect  holy  creature, 


26  AN    INq,UIRY PART    I. 

to  fall  before  a  temptation,  and  that  by  means  of  agents, 
which  almost  all  her  sinful  posterity  would  have  re- 
sisted. What  man,  what  female,  now,  would  be  de- 
ceived into  disobedience  by  a  speaking  serpent,  or  the 
devil  under  this  likeness  ?  If  pure  mother  Eve  could 
not  resist  such  a  temptation,  how  can  it  be  expected 
her  corrupt  offspring  can  resist  any  temptation  1  All 
these  things  lead  me  to  suspect,  this  account  of 
the  deception  of  Eve  by  a  serpent,  was  intended  to 
teach  us  something  else  ;  and  tliat  we  are  indebted  to 
Milton,  rather  than  Moses,  for  the  common  opinions 
entertained  on  this  subject. 

I  shall  now  state  for  candid  consideration  my  own 
opinion  of  this  passage.  We  find  it  then  said,  chap, 
iii.  1 — ''  Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle  than  any 
beast  of  the  field." — The  question  is — What  ser- 
pent did  Moses  mean  ?  Chapter  ii.  19,  would 
lead  us  to  conclude  it  was  a  beast  of  the  field. — - 
But  it  will  be  asked — What !  could  serpents  speak 
and  reason  in  those  days  ?  I  answer,  we  have  no  evi- 
dence that  they  did.  It  will  be  asked,  what  then 
did  he  mean  by  the  serpent  ?  1  would  answer  this  by 
asking — did  not  Moses  in  this  account  mean  to  inform 
vs  how  Eve  was  deceived^  and  hoiv  sin  was  first  intro- 
duced 1  To  this  all  will  readily  agree.  Well,  the 
serpent  v/as  mo7X  subtle  than  any  beast  ofthe  field,  and 
was  the  fittest  creature  which  could  be  chosen  to  illus- 
trate by  a  figure  how  Eve  was  deceived.  Let  it  be 
recollected,  Moses  wrote  this  account  more  than  two 
thousand  years  after  it  happened,  and  selects  the  ser- 
pent, celebrated  for  its  subtilty  among  mankind.  And 
why  might  not  Moses  select  this  creature  as  a  figure 
for  deception,  as  other  scripture  writers  do  the  lioti  for 
ferocity,  the  lamb  for  meekness,  and  the  dove  for 
harmlessness  ? 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  27 

It  will  be  said,  allowing  this  to  be  true,  what  de- 
ceived Eve,  and  ivhich  Moses  here  represents  hy  the 
suhtiJty  of  the  serpent  1  I  answer,  lust  or  desire. — 
That  Adam  and  Eve  were  created  with  appetites  or 
desires  will  not  be  questioned.  They  desired,  or  lusted 
after  the  fj-uit  of  the  other  trees  of  the  garden,  and  ate 
of  them.  Nor  would  there  have  been  any  sin  in  lust- 
ing after  and  eating  the  fruit  of  the  prohibited  tree  more 
than  the  others,  but  for  the  prohibition.  It  was  this, 
and  this  alone,  which  could  render  it  criminal.  Before 
the  prohibition  was  given,  there  was  no  sin  in  either. 
But  this  only  provokes  the  question — How  came  Eve 
to  desire  the  fruit  of  the  prohibited  tree?  Answer; 
she  could  no  more  prevent  herself  having  desires,  than 
she  could  prevent  herself  being  made,  or  made  just  such 
a  creature  with  such  appetites  ;  and  the  very  prohibi- 
tion net  to  eat  of  this  tree,  was  calculated  to  excite  cu- 
riosity in  her  about  it,  and  create  desire  after  it.  What 
man  has  not  known  the  truth  of  this  from  experience  ? 
The  evil  did  not  lie  in  Eve's  having  appetites  and  de- 
sires, but  her  appetites  and  desires  took  occasion  from 
the  very  prohibition,  and  in  this  way  she  was  deceived 
and  eventually  sinned.  ¥/hat  Paul  says,  Rom,  vii. 
7 — 11,  Eve  might  have  said,  "  I  had  not  known  sin 
but  by  the  law :  for  I  had  not  known  lust  except  the 
law  had  said  thou  shalt  not  eat.  But  sin  taking  occa- 
sion by  the  commandment,  wrought  in  me  all  manner 
of  concupiscence.  For  without  the  law  sin  was  dead. 
For  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once  ;  but  when  the 
commandment  came,-  sin  revived,  and  1  died.  And  the 
commandment,  which  was  ordained  to  life,  I  found  to 
be  unto  death.  For  sin,  taking  occasion  hy  the  com- 
mandment deceived  me,  and  hy  it  slew  wie."  What 
does  Paul  here  say  deceived  him  ?  It  was  sin  taking 
occasion  hy  the  commandment,  or  desire,  which  is  the 


38  AN    INQ.UIRY PART    I. 

origin  of  sin  ;  for  lust  or  desire,  "  when  it  hath  con- 
ceived, bringeth  forth  sin."  James  i.  15.  So  in  re- 
gard to  Eve.  There  could  be  no  difference  betwixt 
Paul  and  her,  unless  we  suppose  one  of  two  things. — 
First,  That  Eve  was  created  w  ithout  lust  or  desire  al- 
together, which  was  certainly  not  the  case.  Or,  sec^ 
ond,  That  she  was  incapable  of  desiring  what  God  had 
prohibited.  If  so,  then  she  would  have  been  incapable 
of  sinning.  The  event  proved  that  she  was  not.  It 
should  ever  be  kept  in  view,  that  sin  does  not  consist 
in  having  lust  or  desire,  nor  even  in  being  tempted  to 
gratify  desire  contrary  to  the  comniandment,  but  in 
complying  with  the  temptation.  Jesus  Christ  had  de» 
sire,  and  was  tempted,  but  resisted  the  temptation,  as 
will  appear  in  Section  vii. 

If  the  serpent  then  was  more  subtle  than  any  beast 
of  the  field,  it  was  the  fittest  creature  which  could  be 
selected  to  show  the  deceit  of  lust.  In  this  view,  the 
whole  dialogue  between  Eve  and  her  own  lust,  is  both 
striking  and  natural.  The  serpent,  or  Eve's  lust  after 
the  fruit,  says — -''  Yea,  hath  God  said  *,  ye  shall  not 
eat  of  every  tree  of  the  garden  ?"  Thus  her  lust  takes 
occasion  by  the  commandment  to  desire  the  fruit.  But 
Eve  knew  the  commandment,  hence  she  replied  to  her 
lust — "  We  may  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the  gar* 
den  :  but  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  which  is  in  the  midst 
of  the  garden,  God  hath  said,  ye  shall  not  eat  of  it, 
neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die."  To  this  lust  re- 
plied— "  Ye  shall  not  surely  die  ;  for  God  doth  know-, 
that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall  be 
opened  ;  and  ye  shall  be  as  gods  knowing  good  and 
evil."  Permit  me  to  ask,  could  any  thing  be  more 
fitly  chosen  to  describe  the  artful,  plausible  insinuations 
of  lust  or  desire  after  some  forbidden  object?  But  the 
woiiian  ceases  to  oppose  her  lust.,  by  reasoning  further 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  29 

on  the  subject.  '^  And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the 
tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant  to  the 
eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise,  she 
took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and  gave  also 
unto  her  husband  with  her,  and  he  did  eat."  From 
its  being  said — "  the  woman  saiv  that  the  tree  was 
good  for  food,"  some  have  concluded,  that  she  saw  a 
serpent  eat  of  the  fruit,  and  no  evil  following,  she  con- 
cluded it  must  be  good  for  her  food  also.  If  this  is 
true,  it  was  calculated  to  excite  desire  in  her,  and  em- 
bolden her  to  proceed.  It  was  also  an  additional  rea- 
son for  introducing  the  serpent  into  this  account.  If 
the  word  saw,  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  considered, 
as  is  evidently  its  sense  in  some  other  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture, she  must  then  have  considered,  or  inferred  that 
the  fruit  was  good  for  food,  from  seeing  the  serpent  eat ; 
or  drew  this  conclusion,  from  looking  at  the  fruit  and 
the  reasonings  of  her  own  lust  or  desire  about  it.  The 
last  I  am  inclined  to  think  was  the  case.  But  let  these 
things  be  as  they  may,  it  is  certain  the  tree  appeared 
pleasant  to  her  eye,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  maJce 
one  wise.  This  her  lust  told  her.  All  know  lust  is 
subtile  and  eloquent  in  its  persuasions,  and  never  fails 
to  promise,  that  we  shall  be  wiser  and  happier  by  its 
indulgence.  Eve  was  overcome  by  the  lust  of  the 
flesh  and  the  lust  of  the  eye.  She  eat,  and  gave  also 
to  her  husband  and  he  did  eat.  He  hearkened  to  the 
voice  of  his  wife,  and  thus  "  Adam  was  not  deceived, 
but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  (first)  in  the  tranS" 
gression." — 1  Tim,  ii,  14, 

It  will  likely  be  said,  plausible  as  this  appears,  what 
evidence  have  we  that  Eve's  lust  is  here  represented  by 
the  serpent,  and  that  this  dialogue  was  between  her 
and  her  own  lust?  The  evidence  which  inclines  me 
to  this  view  of  the  subject  I  shall  very  briefly  state, 
3 


30  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

1st.  I  6nd  lust  or  desire  stated  in  Scripture  to  be 
the  source  or  origin  of  transgression.  James  says,  ch. 
i.  15 — "Then  when  lust  hath  conceived,  it  bringeth 
forth  sin  ;  and  sin  when  it  is  finished  bringeth  forth 
death."  See  also  chap.  iv.  1,  and  other  texts  which 
I  need  not  quote.  The  conceivings  of  lust  after  any 
object,  never  could  bring  forth  sin,  unless  that  object 
was  prohibited.  Paul  says — "  I  had  not  known  sin 
but  by  the  law  :  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the 
law  had  said  thou  shalt  not  covet."  Rom.  vii.  7.  It 
is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  common  sense,  that 
where  there  is  no  law,  there  can  be  no  transgression. 
Allow  me  then  to  ask,  must  not  lust  in  Eve  have  been 
the  source  of  sin,  just  as  it  is  in  us  ?  Can  any  good 
reason  be  assigned  why  it  is  now  the  source  of  sin  in  us 
but  was  not  so  with  her  ? 

2d.  Sin,  and  lust  the  source  of  sin,  are  always  re- 
presented in  Scripture  as  deceitful  and  beguiling.  Paul, 
Heb.  iii.  13,  speaks  of  the  ^'  deceitfidness  of  sin,"  and 
declares,  Rom.  vii.  11,  that  sin  taking  occasion  by  the 
commandment  "  c?ecefre<Z"  him  and  slew  him.  And 
in  Eph.  iv.  22,  he  exhorts  to  put  off  "  ihe  old  man, 
which  is  corrupt  according  Xo  the  deceitful  lusts^  And 
as  all  the  conceivings  of  lust  are  in  the  heart,  it  is  said 
— "  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things.''^ — Jer.  xvii. 
9.  The  serpent  then  was  more  subtle  than  any  beast 
of  the  field,  and  was  just  as  fit  to  represent  the  deceit 
of  lust,  as  the  dove  is  to  represent  the  quality  of  harm- 
lessness,  or  the  lamb  that  of  meekness.  Those  familiar 
with  the  scriptures  know,  that  many  of  the  beasts  of  the 
field  are  used  as  figures,  in  a  similar  way,  which  it 
would  be  tedious  to  detail.  For  example:  our  Lord 
says,  "  be  ye  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as  doves." 
And  it  is  well  known,  that  in  Daniel  and  the  book  of 
Revelation,  the  writers  deliver  their  prophecies  under 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  Si 

the  figure  of  beasts,  and  other  symbols  derived  from  the 
material  world. 

3d.  In  after  parts  of  Scripture,  the  serpent  is  used, 
as  a  figure  for  cunning  and  deceit.  The  word  rendered 
serpent  in  the  account  before  us  is  Nehesh.  Taylor 
says  it  signifies  the  "  common  snake.  But  in  southern, 
hot,  desert  countries,  the  snakes  may  be  larger  or  more 
venomous  than  in  the  cold  northern  climates."  It  is 
used  literally  for  the  snake  or  serpent.  Job  xxvi.  13, 
Eccles.  X.  8,  Prov.  xxx.  19,  Deut.  viii.  15,  Numb. 
xxi.7,  9,  Amos  ix.  3,  Jer.  xlvi.  22,  Mic.  vii.  17,  Jer. 
viii.  17,  Eccles.  X.  11,  Amos  v.  19,  Numb.  xxi.  6. 
The  same  word  is  used  for  the  hrazen  serpent  which 
Moses  made,  2  Kings,  xviii.  4,  Numb.  xxi.  9.  Also 
for  Moses'  rod  changed  to  a  serpent,  Exod.  iv.  3,  and 
vii.  15.  It  is  used  figuratively  for  tribes  and  nations, 
and  to  express  a  state  of  subjugation,  degradation,  &,c. 
Gen.  xlix.  17,  Isai.  xxvii.  1,  Mic,  vii.  17.  Isai.  Ixv.  25. 
This  word  is  also  used  figuratively,  to  set  forth  the  de- 
ceit and  lies  of  wicked  men.  Please  consult  the  fol- 
lowing passages.  Psalms  Iviii.  3 — 5,  and  cxL  1 — 4, 
Eccles.  x.  11,  Isai.  xiv.  29,  Prov.  xxiii.  32.  If  the 
cunning  and  deceit  of  the  serpent  was  learned  by  men 
from  experience  and  observation,  and  was  used  figura 
tively  for  this  purpose,  why  not  also  by  Moses  in  this 
account,  in  showing  how  Eve  was  deceived  by  her  own 
lust?  Was  it  not  just  as  proper  a  figure,  to  show  how 
sin  entered  by  the  deceit  of  lust,  as  to  illustrate  its  de- 
ceitfulness,  in  its  progress  among  men  afterwards  ?  If 
lust  is  deceitful  now,  and  if  the  serpent  on  account  of 
subtlety  is  a  proper  figure  to  express  it,  at  what  date 
shall  we  fix  the  commencement  of  its  deceit,  and  the 
use  of  this  figure,  if  my  view  of  this  subject  is  contro- 
verted ? 

4th.  The  view  given  of  Eve's  deception  by  the  ser° 


32  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

pent,  or  her  own  lust,  accords  with  every  man's  own 
experience.  We  all,  like  her,  have  appetites  and  de- 
sires, nor  IS  it  sinful  to  have  them,  or  even  to  gratify 
them  in  the  way,  or  to  the  extent  God  allows  us.  But  I 
ask,  where  is  the  man  to  be  found,  who  has  not  felt  the 
conceivings  of  lust  within  him  after  some  forbidden  ob- 
ject ?  And  can  any  man  deny  the  subtle,  deceitful 
influence,  which  lust  lias  had  over  his  reason  and  un- 
derstanding ?  Yea,  1  appeal  to  every  man,  if  some- 
thing of  a  similar  dialogue  has  not  taken  yilace  with 
him  and  his  own  lust,  as  I  have  said  took  place  between 
Eve  and  hers.  Our  consciences,  if  well  informed,  will 
reason  and  remonstrate  against  our  desires,  and  in  favor 
of  obedience  to  the  commandment.  And  can  the  man 
be  found,  who  will  affirm,  that  his  lusts  have  never  flat- 
tered him  into  disobedience  ?  In  the  very  best  of  men, 
the  flesh  has  lusted  against  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit 
against  the  flesh,  and  made  them  exclaim — "  O  wretch- 
ed man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  this  body 
of  death." 

5th.  The  view  I  have  given  of  Eve's  deception,  ac- 
cords with  what  is  stated  in  the  subsequent  part  of  the 
chapter.  The  first  thing  stated  is — "  the  eyes  of  them 
both  were  opened,"  as  the  serpent  or  lust  had  sug- 
gested to  Eve,  verse  5.  They  came  to  know  evil  as 
well  as  good  by  disobedience,  but  it  did  not  add  to  their 
happiness  and  comfort  as  was  expected.  Does  not 
every  man  find  this,  who  yields  to  the  flattery  of  his 
lusts,  and  transgresses  the  commandments  of  God  ? — 
But  what  deserves  our  notice  is,  the  account  to  which 
the  oflenders  are  called.  Adam  is  first  called  up,  and 
asked — "  What  is  this  that  thou  hast  done  ?"  He  an- 
swers— "  the  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me, 
she  gave  me  of  the  tree  and  I  did  eat."  The  woman 
is   n^M  interrogated — "  what  is   this    that   thou  hast 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  33 

done  ?"  She  answers — "  the  serpent  beguiled  me  and 
I  did  eat."  What  serpent  beguiled  her?  I  have  said 
her  own  lust  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment  be- 
guiled her.  Let  us  fee  how  this  view  accords  with  the 
sentence  pronounced  on  the  serpent.  God  does  not 
say  to  Eve's  lust  or  the  serpent — ''  what  is  this  that 
thou  hast  done?"  But — "because  thou  hast  done 
this  thou  art  cursed  above  all  cattle,  and  above  every 
beast  of  the  field  :  upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,  and 
dust  shalt  thoa  eat  all  the  days  of  thy  life."*  The 
sentence  is  in  accordance  with  the  figurative  use  of  the 
term  serpent.  It  would  have  destroyed  the  congruity 
of  the  account  to  have  done  otherwise.  Well,  let  us 
see  how  this  sentence  agrees  to  men's  bodily  appetites 
and  d-esires.,  as  figuratively  expressed  by  the  term  ser- 
pent. We  have  said  that  man  was  created  with  bodily 
appetites,  passions  and  desires.  These  were  given  him 
to  be  in  subjection  to  God's  will,  and  not  gratified  be- 
yond the  limits  which  he  prescribed.  Eve,  listening 
to  them  beyond  this  limit,  transgressed.  In  her,  and 
all  who  have  followed  her  example,  when  gratified  be- 
yond this  they  become  degraded  and  groveling  even 
below  every  beast  of  the  field.  The  real  bodily  wants 
of  man  are  few,  and  their  supply  easily  obtained.  But 
to  his  artificial,  sinful  desires,  no  boundaries  can  hardly 
be  prescribed.  These  often  are  so  low,  and  filthy, 
that  no  beast  of  the  field  is  given  to  similar  indul- 
gencies.  Men's  lusts  and  passions — "  are  cursed 
above  all  cattle  and  above  every  beast  of  the  field." — 
Like  the  natural  serpent,  dust  or  earthly  gratifications 

*  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  here,  as  some  have  done,  that 
the  serpent  before  this  walked  upright,  any  more  than  that  there 
was  no  rainbow  before  the  flood.  The  rainbow  was  only  used  as 
a  sign  that  God  would  not  destroy  the  earth  again  with  a  flood  ; 
and  the  grovelling  nature  of  the  serpent  to  set  forth  what  would 
afterwards  be  the  state  of  men's  bodily  lusts  or  desires. 


34  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

are  their  enjoyment,  until  the  person  is  created  anew 
in  Christ  Jesus,  and  is  led  to  place  his  affection  on 
things  which  are  above.  What  shall  I  eat,  and  what 
shall  I  drink,  are  the  questions  in  which  our  bodily  de- 
sires centre,  and  to  have  goods  laid  up  for  many  years, 
to  eat,  drink  and  be  merry,  are  their  happiness.  But 
the  account  proceeds — "And  I  will  put  enmity  be- 
tween thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and 
her  seed  :  it  shall  bruise  thy  head  and  thou  shalt  bruise 
his  heel."  The  seed  of  the  woman  here  is  generally 
understood  to  refer  to  Christ.  Well,  what  is  the  seed 
of  the  serpent  ?  I  answer  sin,  for  "when  lust  hath 
conceived  it  bringeth  forth  sin."  This  agrees  precisely 
to  what  Christ  was  manifested  to  do.  "  He  was  mani- 
fested to  take  away  our  sins."  This  will  be  shown  in 
Sect.  vi.  The  Jews,  who  were  of  their  father  the 
devil,  bruised  Christ,  in  crucifying  him,  but  he  by  his 
death  destroyed  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that 
is  the  devil.  The  enmity  between  the  seed  of  the  wo- 
man, and  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  is  beautifully  illus- 
trated by  such  texts  as  the  following:  "  They  that 
are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  its  affections 
and  lusts.  Walk  in  the  spirit  and  ye  shall  not  fulfil 
the  lusts  of  the  flesh.  For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh,"  Kic.  To  bruise 
a  serpent's  head  is  to  kill  it.  And  Christ  before  he  de- 
livers up  the  kingdom  is  to  accomplish  the  entire  de- 
struction of  this  devil  and  all  his  works.  See  1  Cor. 
XV.  24,  &;c.   Heb.  ii.  14,  15,  with  many  other  texts. 

I  shall  only  add,  to  represent  Eve  as  holding  a  dia- 
logue with  her  own  lust,  can  create  no  difficulty  to  per- 
sons familiar  with  their  Bible,  The  beasts  of  the  field, 
and  trees  of  the  wood,  are  in  the  figurative  language  of 
Scripture  represented  as  holding  conversation  together. 
Nor  is  the  Bible  wanting  in  examples  of  persons  hold« 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  35 

ing  dialogues  with  themselves.  But  I  must  suppress 
many  additional  remarks,  which  I  intended  to  make  on 
the  first  three  chapters  of  Genesis,  as  the  remarks  al- 
ready made,  exceed  the  limits  assigned  to  this  part  ol 
the  subject. 


SECTION  III. 

ALL    THE  TEXTS  IN  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT,  WHERE  THE 

ORIGINAL  WORD   SHAITAN,  OR  SATAN  OCCURS, 

CONSIDERED. 

The  passages  where  the  term  satan  occurs  in  the 
Old  Testament,  are  now  to  be  brought  forward,  and 
we  urge  it  on  the  reader  to  observe,  if  satan  is  a  fallen 
angel,  the  serpent  which  deceived  Eve,  as  is  very  gene- 
rally asserted.  We  shall  take  up  the  passages,  in  the 
order  they  occur  in  the  common  version.  Taylor, 
Parkhurst,  and  all  critics  declare,  that  the  word  satan 
signifies,  '^  an  adversary. ^^  In  this  sense  it  was  under- 
stood by  our  translators,  for  this  is  their  usual  rendering 
of  it,  as  we  shall  see  immediately.  It  occurs  then  first 
as  a  noun  feminine. 

Gen.  xxvi.  21 .  "  And  they  digged  another  well,  and 
strove  for  that  also :  and  he  called  the  name  of  it  sit- 
nahJ'  If  the  term  satan  be  the  name  of  a  fallen  an- 
gel, it  is  strange  the  sacred  writers  should  first  apply  it 
to  a  well.  Had  the  existence  of  such  a  being  been 
previously  announced,  it  might  be  supposed  he  was  the 
cause  of  the  strife  about  this  well,  and  on  account  of 
which  it  received  this  name.     But  nothins:  like  this  is 


36  AN    INQUIRY PART    I, 

to  be  found.  The  well  is  called  sitnah,  or  satan  in  the 
text,  and  we  have  haired  in  the  margin  as  its  expla- 
nation. Hatred  is  the  act  of  an  adversary,  and  the 
context  sufficiently  shows  why  it  received  this  name. 
Numb.  xxii.  22,  32.  "  And  God's  anger  was  kin- 
dled, because  he  (Baalam)  went :  and  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  stood  in  the  way  for  an  adversary  against  him. — 
And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  wherefore 
hast  thou  smitten  thine  ass  these  three  times  ?  Behold 
I  went  out  to  ivithstand  thee,  because  thy  way  is  per- 
verse before  me."  The  word  satan  in  the  original  oc- 
curs twice,  and  is  here  rendered  by  the  words  adver- 
sary, and,  to  withstand,  thee.  In  the  margin  of  the 
last  verse  we  have,  "  to  he  an  adversary  unto  thee.'^ 
It  is  obvious,  that  the  satan  or  adversary  who  with- 
stood Baalam,  instead  of  being  a  fallen  angel,  was  the 
angel  of  Jehovah.  It  is  then  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
the  first  time  the  term  satan  is  applied  to  any  being  in 
the  Bible,  it  is  to  a  o^ood  beino;.  But  this  is  concealed 
from  the  reader,  by  rendering  the  word  satan,  adver- 
sary. It  may  be  observed  here,  and  the  remark  ap- 
plies to  other  texts,  that  had  the  original  word  been 
always  retained  in  the  text,  or  had  it  been  uniformly 
rendered  adversary,  we  would  have  been  less  liable  to 
mistaken  views  on  this  subject.  Had  the  first  been 
done,  we  must  have  recurred  to  the  context  and  scope 
of  the  writer  to  ascertain  what  he  meant  by  satan  ;  and 
if  a  being,  what  being  was  referred  to.  It  would  have 
been  easily  perceived,  some  human  adversary  was  re- 
ferred to,  or  the  angel  of  Jehovah,  as  in  the  passage 
before  us.  But  the  word  satan  being  sometimes  re- 
tained in  the  text,  and  sometimes  rendered  adversary, 
the  common  Scripture  usage  of  this  word  is  not  per- 
ceived. Besides,  people  from  education  and  habit, 
have  attached  the  idea  of  a  fallen  anirel  to  the  word 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  37 

satan,  which  always  suggests  the  idea  of  such  a  being. 
But  not  so  with  the  word  adversary,  which  is  its  ren- 
dering in  many  passages.  Accordingly,  it  is  on  the 
texts  where  the  term  satan  is  left  untranslated,  that 
people  have  built  their  faith  about  a  fallen  angel.  This 
idea  has  been  associated  with  the  word  in  their  minds 
from  childhood,  and  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  effect  a 
separation.  The  term  satnn  will  suggest  it,  and  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  its  scripture  usage,  and  the  con- 
text of  the  places  where  it  occurs,  are  not  sufficient  to 
destroy  it.  Commencing  the  study  of  the  Bible  with 
this  false  idea,  all  must  see  how  many  texts  may  be 
perverted,  not  from  design,  but  from  the  influence  of 
this  false  association.  We  know  of  no  better  way  to 
correct  it  than  to  recur  to  the  original  sense  of  the 
term  satan,  and  examine  all  the  places  where  it  occurs, 
with  their  respective  contexts. 

Should  it  be  asked — why  did  not  the  translators  of 
our  English  version  either  render  this  word  always  ad- 
versaTy,  or  uniformly  leave  the  term  sotoM  untransla- 
ted ?  I  answer:  had  they  always  rendered  it  adver- 
sary, they  could  not  so  easily  have  infused  into  their 
version  the  idea  of  a  fallen  angel.  Had  they  always 
retained  the  original  word,  its  application  to  the  angel 
of  Jehovah,  human  beings  and  things  would  have  led 
people  to  conclude  that  it  did  not  designate  such  an 
evil  being.  King  James,  under  whose  patronage  the 
version  was  made,  not  only  believed  that  satan  was'-a 
fallen  angel,  but  he  wrote  in  defence  of  the  doctrine  of 
witchcraft. 

1  Sam.  xxix.  4.  "  And  the  princes  of  the  Philistines 
said  unto  him,  make  this  fellow  return,  that  he  may  go 
again  to  his  place  which  thou  hast  appointed  him,  and 
let  him  not  go  down  with  us  to  battle,  lest  in  the  battle 
he  be  an  adversary  to  us.^'     Here  again  the  terra  satan 

I 


.    38  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I. 

is  rendered  adversary,  and  it  is  evident  from  the  con- 
text, that  David,  not  a  fallen  angel  is  meant.  Nor, 
need  this  surprise  us,  seeing  the  angel  of  Jehovah  was 
called  so  in  the  preceding  passage.  Many  people  do 
not  know  this,  but  it  would  have  been  evident  had  our 
translators,  as  in  other  places,  left  the  term  satan  un- 
translated. This  is  the  first  place  in  the  Bible  where 
the  word  satan  is  applied  to  a  human  beinir,  and  it  is 
applied  to  a  man  who  feared  God.  It  need  not  then 
surprise  us.  that  our  Lord  called  Peter  satan,  and  Ju- 
das a  devil.  It  is  very  obvious,  the  idea  of  a  fallen 
angel  attached  to  the  word  satan,  is  calculated  to  mis- 
lead us,  for  this  term  is  used  to  designate  the  very  best 
of  created  beino;s. 

2  Sam.  xix.  22.  "  And  David  said,  what  have  I  to 
do  with  you,  ye  sons  of  Zeruiah,  that  ye  should  this  day 
be  adversaries  unto  me."  Here  the  term  satan  is  used 
in  the  plural,  and  is  rendered  adversaries.  The  satayis 
referred  to,  are  expressly  called  the  sons  of  Zeruiah. 
Wicked  men  they  might  be,  but  no  one  supposes  they 
were  fallen  angels.  Besides,  it  is  commonly  believed, 
there  is  but  one  being  in  the  universe  which  goes  by 
this  name,  yet  here  we  find  the  term  used  in  the  plural 
and  applied  to  men.  In  the  New  Testatnent  we  read 
o{  demons,  and  of  a  person  possessed  with  a  legion  of 
them.  But  David  does  not  say  the  sons  of  Zeruiah 
were  demons,  or  possessed  with  demons  or  satans,  but 
that  they  were  satans  to  him.  This  shows  clearly,  the 
term  simply  means  an  adversary,  and  was  the  sense 
David  attached  to  it.  We  seldom  if  ever  use  it  in  the 
plural,  for  the  unity  of  satan  is  the  common  belief  as 
much  as  the  unity  of  God. 

1  Kings  V.  4.  "  But  now  the  Lord  my  God  hath 
given  me  rest  on  every  side,  so  that  there  is  neither 
adversarv  nor  evil  occurrent."     Here  the  term  satan 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  ^ 

is  used  in  the  singular,  and  is  again  rendered  adversa- 
ry. Solomon  does  not  name,  as  in  the  preceding 
text,  any  person  referred  to,  but  the  scope  of  the  con- 
text evidently  shows,  that  he  had  in  view,  human  be- 
ings, who  were  accustomed  to  be  satans  or  adversaries 
to  Israel.  David  had  many  such  satans  to  contend 
with  during  his  reign,  but  now  Solomon  had  none  of 
them  to  disturb  the  peace  of  his  kingdom.  He  there- 
fore determined  to  build  an  house  to  the  Lord,  which 
his  father  was  prevented  from  doing  by  his  frequent 
wars  with  them.  We  shall  soon  see  that  Solomon  was 
not  altogether  free  from  his  troubles  from  such  satans 
or  adversaries. 

1  Kings  xi.  14,  23,  25.  "And  the  Lord  stirred  up 
an  adversary  unto  Solomon  ;  Hadad  the  Edomite  :  he 
was  of  the  king's  seed  in  Edom.  And  God  stirred  him 
up  another  adversary,  Rezon,  the  son  of  Eliadah,  which 
fled  from  his  lord  Hadadezer,  King  of  Zobah.  And 
he  was  an  adversary  to  Israel  all  the  days  of  Solomon, 
beside  the  mischief  that  Hadad  did  :  and  he  abhor- 
red Israel  and  reigned  over  Syria."  In  these  verses^ 
the  word  satan  is  used  three  times,  and  is  uniformly 
rendered  adversary.  The  term  is  applied  to  human 
beings,  who  are  distinctly  named,  Hadad  the  Edom- 
ite, and  Rezon  the  son  of  Eliadah.  The  last  was  a 
satan  to  Solomon  all  his  days.  It  would  be  ridiculous 
to  suppose  the  term  satan  here,  had  any  reference  to 
a  fallen  angel  ;  for  the  in  first  case  it  would  be  to 
make  him  an  Edomite,  and  in  the  second  the  son  of 
Eliadah,  and  that  he  was  called  Hadad  and  Rezon 
as  well  as  satan.  It  is  of  more  importance  to  ob- 
serve, God  stirred  up  those  satans  against  Solo- 
mon. Had  only  one  satan  been  mentioned,  and  no 
name  given  to  show  who  was  particularly  meant,  it  is 
likely  some  would  have  concluded,  that  God  stirred 


40  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

up  a  fallen  angel  against  him.  But  here,  it  is  put  be- 
yond all  controversy,  that  satan  has  no  reference  to  a 
fallen  angel.  We  would  then  ask,  ought  not  such 
texts,  where  the  circumstances  mentioned,  so  clearly 
decide  that  this  term  designates  no  such  being,  to 
teach  us  caution  in  concluding  that  this  is  its  meaning 
in  any  passage  ?  When  the  word  satan  is  introduced, 
and  no  circumstances  are  mentioned  clearly  to  decide 
who  or  what  is  meant,  is  it  rational  or  scriptural  to 
say  a  fallen  angel  or  wicked  spirit  must  be  meant  ? 
We  should  think  not;  and  until  it  is  satisfactorily 
proved,  that  such  a  being  does  exist,  no  rational  man 
would  ever  think  of  such  a  conclusion. 

1  Chron.  xxi.  1.  "  And  satan  stood  up  against  Is- 
rael, and  provoked  David  to  number  Israel."  Here, 
for  the  first  time,  the  word  satan  is  left  untranslated; 
but  I  can  perceive  no  good  reason  why  it  was  not  ren- 
dered adversary,  as  it  is  in  other  places.  No  evi- 
dence appears  from  the  text  or  context,  that  a  fallen 
angel  or  wicked  spirit  provoked  David  to  number  Is- 
rael. If  the  rule  in  otlier  cases  be  allowed  here,  plain 
passages  ought  to  interpret  doubtful  and  obscure  ones, 
and  common  scripture  usage  of  a  word,  ought  to  de- 
termine in  particular  cases  in  what  sense  the  sacred 
writers  used  it.  It  is  then  determined  here,  for  no 
previous  scripture  writer  has  said  any  thing  about  a 
fallen  angel,  or  used  the  word  satan  in  reference  to 
such  a  being.  Supposintr  they  had  done  this,  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  conclude  he  was  spoken  of,  for  the  term 
satan  is  applied,  to  human  beings  in  preceding  pas- 
sages, which  might  be  the  case  here.  In  every  text 
the  question  ouglit  to  be,  what  satan  or  adversary  is 
intended  ?  As  the  word  is  not  translated,  and  the 
idea  of  a  fallen  angel  lis  associated  with  it  in  peo- 
ple's minds,  and  nothing  directly   being  said   to  the 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  41 

contrary,  it  is  concluded  that  this  being  provoked  Da- 
vid to  number  Israel.  Though  the  labor  of  proving 
this  belongs  to  them,  yet  I  shall  offer  the  following 
proof  to  the  contrary. 

1st.  If  the  term  satan  designates,  in  this  passage,  a 
fallen  angel,  it  is  the  first  time  we  hear  any  thing  con- 
cerning such  a  being  in  the  Bible,  under  this  or  any 
other  name.  But  it  is  evident  satan  is  not  here  in- 
troduced as  a  new  and  extraordinary  being,  nor  is 
there  any  evidence  that  the  word  is  used  in  a  different 
sense  from  what  it  is  in  the  passages  already  con- 
sidered. To  believe  his  existence  from  the  text,  is 
not  only  implicit  faith,  but  in  face  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  arising  from  scripture  usage  of  the  word, 
and  the  silence  of  all  preceding  writers  about  such  a 
being. 

2d.  Had  the  word  satan  been  rendered  adversary, 
previous  scripture  usage  would  have  led  us  to  con- 
clude, one  of  David's  enemies  had  menaced  him  with 
a  new  war,  and  thus  provoked  him  to  number  Israel. 
It  should  be  remembered,  that  the  strength  of  Israel 
did  not  consist  in  the  m,ultitude  of  their  armies,  but 
their  confidence  in  Jehovah  and  obedience  to  his  laws. 
In  numbering  Israel,  David  sinned  greatly,  as  it  inti- 
mated a  removal  of  his  trust  from  God  to  that  of  the 
number  and  strength  of  his  forces.  It  has  been 
thought  by  some  that  David's  sin  consisted  in  his 
wishing  to  establish  a  military  government  for  con- 
quest, hence  gave  orders  to  enrol  all  Israel  for  this 
purpose. 

3d.  But  what  in  this  })assage  is   ascribed  to  satan, 
is  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  ascribed  to  God.     "And  the  an- 
ger of  the  Lord  was   kindled   against  Israel,  and   he 
moved  David  against  them  to  say,  go  number  Israel 
_and  Judah."     We  are  sure  that  God  tempts  no  man 


42  AN    INQUIRY PART   I. 

to  evil,  James  i.  13.  Should  it  be  said  God  permit- 
ted satan,  a  fallen  angel,  to  do  it,  we  ask  where  is  the 
proof  of  this  ?  The  passage  affords  none,  except  the 
gratuitous  sense  affixed  to  the  term  satan,  which  sig- 
nifies an  adversary.  To  say  it  here  means  a  fallen 
angel,  is  not  only  begging  the  question,  but  is  opposed 
to  all  former  scripture  usage  of  this  word. 

4th.  When  David's  heart  smote  him  for  his  sin,  he 
imputes  no  part  of  the  blame  either  to  satan  or  God. 
No,  he  says — "  I  have  sinned  greatly  because  I  have 
done  this  thing."  1  Chron.  xxi.  8.  Nor,  do  we  find 
that  satan  suffers  any  part  of  the  punishment,  or  is 
threatened  with  any.  Others  suffered  severely  for  his 
sin,  but  if  satan  was  the  chief  cause  of  all  this  evil, 
why  does  he  escape  all  punishment?  David  does  not 
plead  his  influence  in  mitigation  of  his  offence,  or  the 
punishment  it  incurred.  But  if  either  God  or  a  fallen 
angel  moved  David  to  commit  this  sin,  why  did  no 
blame  attach  to  them  ? 

5th.  But  some  orthodox  critics  declare,  that  there 
is  no  reference  to  such  a  being  in  this  passage.  Park- 
hurst  says,  on  this  word ;  "  I  would  understand  it,  1 
Chron.  xxi.  l,o[  ^  human  adversary  :  compare  2  Sam. 
XX vi.  1,  which  perhaps  may  be  best  rendered  ;  and 
again  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was  kindled  against  Israel, 
and  David  was  moved  against  them  by  (one's)  say- 
ing, or  rather  indefinitely,  and  one  moved  David 
against  them  saying,  go  number  Israel  and  Judah." 
See  Dr.  Chandler's  Life  of  King  David.  Farmer,  on 
Christ's  Temptation,  quoting  from  Dr.  Chandler,  says, 
"for,  speaking  of  David's  numbering  the  people,  he 
says,  if  the  Devil  had  bid  him  do  it,  1  suppose  he  might 
have  seen  the  cloven  foot,  and  luould  scarce  have  fol- 
lowed the  measure  for  the  sake  of  the  adviser J^ 

Ezra  iv.  6.   "  And  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus,  in  the 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART   I.  43 

beginning  of  his  reign,  wrote  they  unto  him  an  accU' 
sation  against  the  inhabitants  of  Judah  and  Jerusa- 
lem." In  this  text  the  word  satan  is  a  noun  feminine 
and  is  rendered  accusation*  Notice,  it  is  not  the  per- 
sons who  wrote  who  are  called  satan,  but  the  thing 
written.  The  persons  who  wrote,  were,  properly- 
speaking,  the  satan,  or  adversary,  yet  it  is  the  written 
document,  sent  by  them  to  Ahasuerus,  which  is  called 
satan,  for  it  was  not  them  but  it,  which  was  to  ap- 
pear before  the  king  as  the  accuser  or  adversary  of  the 
Jews.  Who  the  persons  were  we  learn  from  verses 
1 — G.  "  The  people  of  the  land  weakened  the  hands 
of  the  people  of  Judah  and  troubled  them  in  building. 
And  hired  counsellors  against  them  to  frustrate  their 
purpose,  all  the  days  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia."  But 
we  are  told  that  "  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  in  the 
beginning  of  his  reign,"  they  wrote  to  him,  and  this 
writing  is  called  a  satan  or  accusation.  The  term  sa- 
tan, then,  so  far  from  being  the  appropriate  name  of  a 
fallen  angel,  is  applied  to  men's  evil  passions,  the  an- 
gel of  Jehovah,  human  beings,  and  here  to  a  piece  of 
writing. 

Job  i.  6 — 13,  and  ii.  1 — 11,  comes  next  to  be 
considered.  To  save  room  I  forbear  transcribing 
these  two  passages.  The  reader  can  easily  read 
them.  The  term  satan  occurs  here  fourteen  times, 
but  is  uniformly  left  untranslated.  It  is  rendered,  in 
the  Seventy's  version,  by  the  word  diaholos^  devil. 
Here,  say  many  good  people,  satan  must  mean  a 
fallen  angel — "  for  the  name,  the  things  said  to  be 
done,  and  all  the  circumstances  mentioned,  go  to 
prove  his  existence  and  wicked  character."  We 
frankly  admit,  that  these  two  passages  have  more  the 
appearance  of  teaching  this  doctrine,  than  all  the  other 
texts  adduced  as  proof  of  it.     We  admit,  if  the  devil 


44  AN    INQUIRY PART  I. 

of  Christians  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  this  is  the  place. 
We  hope  then,  that  they  are  willing  to  abide  by  the 
result. 

I  have  examined  these  two  chapters,  with  all  the 
care  and  attention  I  could  command,  and  shall  submit 
the  result  for  candid  consideration,  by  stating  and  an- 
swering the  following  questions  : 

1st.  Who  wrote  the  book  of  Job  ?  Answer  ;  about 
this  there  are  various  opinions.  Some  have  ascribed 
it  to  Job  himself.  Others  to  Elihu  or  one  of  the  pro- 
phets. Tlie  general  opinion  has  been,  that  it  was 
written  by  Moses,  and  composed  from  materials  left 
by  Job  or  his  friends  in  the  Syriac  or  Arabic  language. 
See  Gray's  Key. 

2d.  When  was  the  book  of  Job  written?  Answer; 
It  is  generally  agreed  that  it  was  written  sometime  be- 
tween the  death  of  Joseph  and  the  delivery  of  the  law 
at  Sinai.  It  is  perhaps  itnpossible  for  us  to  fix  its  pre- 
cise date.  Nor  is  this  important  in  our  present  inves- 
tigation. Those  who  wish  to  see  the  various  opinions 
entertained  concerning  this,  may  consult  Gray's  Key, 
pp.  2-29—258. 

3d.  Was  Job  a  real  or  only  a  fictitious  person  ?  An- 
swer; some  have  held  the  latter  opinion.  I  think  Job 
was  a  real  person  ;  for  in  after  parts  of  scripture  his 
afflictions  are  represented  as  real  afflictions,  and  his 
patience  under  them  as  an  example  to  us.  He  is 
spoken  of  just  as  Noah  and  Daniel  are.  One  of  the 
sons  of  Issachar  is  called  Job,  Gen.  xlvi.  13,  and  was 
one  of  Jacob's  grandchildren,  who  went  down  with  him 
into  Eirypt.  If  this  was  the  person  who  forms  the 
subject  of  the  book  of  Job,  it  fixes,  generally,  the 
period  in  which  he  lived. 

4th.  Is  every  thing  in  the  book  of  Job  to  be  under- 
stood liierallv,  or  is  anv  allowance  to  be  made  for  em- 


AN     INQUIRY PART    1.  45 

bellishment  or  allegorical  representation  ?  Answer  ; 
although  I  think  Job  was  a  real  person,  yet  many 
things  are  set  forth  in  the  way  of  allegory.  For  ex- 
ample, God  is  not  only  represented  as  talking  with 
satan,  but  as  influenced  by  him  to  bring  accumulated 
sufferings  on '  a  just  man  without  cause.  These  are 
brought  in  such  rapid  succession,  too,  as  seldom  occurs 
among  men.  Besides,  there  seems  something  studied 
and  artificial  ;  that  only  one  servant  should  make  his 
escape  to  tell  Job  what  had  happened,  and  before  he 
is  well  done,  only  one  more  makes  his  escape  to  bring 
additional  evil  tidings.  And  just  as  he  closes  his 
speech,  a  third  also  in  like  manner,  and  a  fourth  in 
the  same  way  arrives,  and  closes  the  first  scene  of 
Job's  calamities.  Besides,  throughout  the  whole  book, 
there  is  something  very  studied  and  artificial  in  the  set 
speeches  of  Job  and  his  friends,  and  even  of  God 
himself  at  the  close.  The  writer  gives  Job  just  dou- 
ble the  number  of  camels,  oxen,  sheep,  and  asses, 
without  one  more  or  less,  which  he  had  at  the  begin- 
ning. And  he  gives  him  precisely  the  same  number 
of  sons,  and  the  same  number  of  daughters,  as  at  the 
first.  And  "finally  leaves  Job  in  a  more  prosperous 
condition  than  before  his  afflictions  came  upon  him, 
with  a  long  life  of  enjoying  his  prosperity.  The  book 
concludes  without  any  notice  of  the  removal  of  Job's 
disease,  which  by  some  is  called  elephantiasis,  and 
was  deemed  by  physicians  incurable.  Had  the  whole 
been  matter  of  fact,  and  nothing  in  it  allegorical,  we 
hardly  think  such  artificial  statements  could  have  been 
given. 

5th.  In  what  part  of  the  world  were  the  scenes  of 

the  book  of  Job  laid  ?     Answer ;  we  are  told,  chap.  1  : 

1 ,  that — "  there  was  a  man  in  the  land  of  Uz,  whose 

name  was  Job."     That  this  was  in  Chaldea  or  its 

4 


46  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

neighborhood,  is  almost  certain,  for  the  Chaldean  rob- 
bers or  freebooters  are  said  to  have  carried  away  Job's 
flocks,  chap.  i.  17.  Dr.  Parish,  in  his  Sacred  Geo- 
graphy, says — "  Bochart  and  the  authors  of  the  Uni- 
versal History,  and  some  others  place  the  land  of  Uz 
far  south  from  Damascus,  and  almost  directly  east  from 
the  tribe  of  Reuben,  and  west  from  Chaldea,  in  Ara- 
bia Deserta."  But  see  his  work  on  the  word  Uz,  for 
other  opinions  about  this.  See,  also,  Gray's  Key,  as 
referred  to  above.  It  is  not  of  essential  importance, 
to  determine  the  precise  spot  where  Job  lived.  It  is 
sufficient  for  our  purpose  that  he  lived  in  the  east.  See 
Job  1 :  3. 

6th,  What  were  the  religious  opinions  of  the  peo- 
ple where  the  scenes  of  the  book  are  laid  ?  Answer  ; 
This  is  a  point  of  very  great  importance  to  ascertain. 
Orthodox  men  who  certainly  did  not  write  to  favor 
my  opinions  shall  furnish  us  with  all  necessary  infor- 
mation. Prideaux,  in  his  Connexions,  vol.  1.  pp. 
185 — 6,  thus  writes :  ''  Directly  opposite  to  these 
were  the  Magians,  another  sect,  who  had  their  ori- 
ginal in  the  same  eastern  countries;  for  they,  abo- 
minating all  images,  worshipped  God  only  by  fire. 
They  began  first  in  Persia,  and  there,  and  in  India, 
were  the  only  places  where  this  sect  was  propagated  ; 
and  there  they  remain  even  to  this  day.  Their  chief 
doctrine  was,  that  there  were  two  principles,  one 
which  was  the  cause  of  all  good,  and  the  other  the 
cause  of  all  evil,  that  is  to  say,  God  and  the  devil ; 
that  the  former  is  represented  by  light,  and  the  other 
by  darkness,  as  their  truest  symbols ;  and  that,  of 
the  composition  of  these  two,  all  things  in  the  world 
are  made :  the  good  god  they  name  Yazdan.  and  also 
Ormudz,  and  the  evil  god,  Ahraman  :  the  former  is, 
by  the  Greeks,  called  Oramasdez,  and  the  latter  Ari- 


AN    INQUIRY— PART    I.  47 

matiius.  And  therefore,  when  Xerxes  prayed  for 
that  evil  upon  his  enemies,  that  it  might  be  put  into 
ihe  minds  of  all  of  them  to  drive  their  best  and  brav- 
est men  from  them,  as  the  Athenians  had  Themisto- 
cles,  he  addressed  his  prayers  to  Arimanius  the  evil 
god  of  the  Persians,  and  not  to  Oramasdez,  their  good 
ffod.  And  concerning  these  two  gods  there  was  this 
difference  of  opinion  among  them,  that,  whereas  some 
held  both  of  them  to  have  been  from  all  eternity, 
there  were  others  that  contended,  that  the  good  god 
only  was  eternal,  and  that  the  other  was  created. 
But  they  both  agreed  in  this,  that  there  will  be  a  con- 
tinual opposition  between  those  two  till  the  end  of  the 
world  ;  that  then  the  fjood  o;od  shall  overcome  the 
evil  god,  and  that  from  thenceforward  each  of  them 
shall  have  his  world  to  himself,  that  is,  the  good  god 
his  world  with  all  good  men  with  him,  and  the  evil 
god  his  world  with  all  evil  men  with  him  ;  that  dark- 
ness is  the  truest  symbol  of  the  evil  god,  and  light 
the  truest  symbol  of  the  good  god.  And  therefore, 
they  always  worshipped  him  before  fire,  as  being  the 
cause  of  light,  and  especially  before  the  sun,  as  being 
in  their  opinion  the  perfectest  fire,  and  causing  the 
perfectest  light.  And  for  this  reason,  in  all  their  tem- 
ples, they  had  fire  continually  burning  on  altars  erect- 
ed in  them  for  that  purpose.  And  before  these  sacred 
fires  they  offered  up  all  their  public  devotions,  as  like* 
wise  they  did  all  their  private  devotions  before  their 
private  fires  in  their  own  houses.  Thus  did  they  pay 
the  highest  honor  to  light,  as  being  in  their  opinion 
the  truest  representative  of  the  good  god  ;  but  always 
hated  darkness,  as  being,  what  they  thought,  the 
truest  representative  of  the  evil  god,  v/hom  they  ever 
had  in  the  utmost  detestation,  as  we  now  have  the 
devil :  and,  for  an  instance  hereof,  whenever  they  had 


48  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

an  occasion,  in  any  of  their  writings,  to  mention  his 
name,  they  always  wrote  it  backward,  and  inversed, 
as  thus,  ueaiBJiiy." 

That  such  were  the  rehgious  opinions  of  the  peo- 
ple where  Job  Hved,  we  should  think  indisputable,  to 
whatever  result  it  may  lead.  Ahraman  or  Arimanius, 
the  evil  principle  deified,  was  the  evil  god  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  only  objection  which  will  be  stated  against 
this  is — .-'That  Job  lived  at  too  early  a  period  for  the 
opinions  advanced  in  this  quotation."  But  in  answer 
I  would  remark  first,  that  Job*s  day  was  not  too  early 
for  Sabianisra  or  the  worship  of  idols,  for  this  existed 
in  Abraham's  day ;  and  when  Israel  entered  Canaan 
the  worship  of  idols  prevailed  among  the  inhabitants. 
Prideaux  speaks  of  Sabianism,  as  opposite  to  Magi- 
anism,  but  does  not  intimate  that  the  former  was  of 
a  more  ancient  date.  On  the  contrary,  we  shall  see 
in  the  next  Section,  that  when  Zoroaster  arose  and 
revived  the  Marian  religion  he  revived  that,  which 
for  ''  many  a(:es"  had  been  the  established  religion 
of  Persia.  In  tliis  account  sotan  is  not  represented 
as  a  new  or  extraordinary  being,  who  had  never 
been  heard  of  before.  It  is  taken  for  granted  that 
the  people  where  the  scenes  of  the  book  are  laid, 
were  familiar  with  such  a  being,  and  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed concerning  him.  This  account,  which  ap- 
pears strange  to  us,  they  needed  no  explanation  of,  any 
more  than  people  among  us  do,  when  any  man  preaches 
about  the  devil. 

But  what  shows  such  opinions  prevailed  where  Job 
lived,  are  the  facts  and  circumstances  mentioned  in 
the  account  itself.  These  we  shall  notice  presently. 
Here  I  would  only  say,  that  it  is  evident  satan  is  in- 
troduced as  an  evil  being,  and  it  is  generally  contend- 
ed that  he  was  the  author  of  all  Job's  afflictions.    This 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  49 

perfectly  asjrees  to  the  opinions  of  the  Magians,  as 
stated  by  Prideaux.  Besides,  previous  scripture  usage 
of  tlie  term  satan,  forbids  us  thinking,  that  the  sacred 
writers  recognised  either  an  evil  god  or  a  fallen  angel 
under  this  name..  Where,  let  me  ask,  do  any  of  them 
intimate,  that  an  evil  l)eing,  such  as  the  Persian  evil 
o-od,  or  the  Christian's  devil,  existed  as  a  rival  to  Je- 
hovah  ?  To  what  else  then  could  the  writer  refer, 
but  to  such  heathen  opinions  ?  If  such  a  being  as  the 
Christian's  devil  existed,  how  is  it  accounted  for,  that 
he  remained  so  quiet  until  the  days  of  Job  ?  Job  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  first  man  he  ever  troubled. 
Noah,  Abraliam,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  with  many  others 
were  good  men,  and  rich  men,  but  he  never  attempted 
to  injure  them  in  their  property,  or  smite  them  with  a 
single  boil  in  their  whole  lifetime.  From  any  thing 
which  appears  to  the  contrary,  they  had  no  fear  of 
such  a  being,  nor  knew  of  liis  existence.  Had  satan 
just  fallen  from  heaven,  in  the  days  of  Job,  and  began 
his  depredations  on  mankind  ?  Admitting  this  true, 
how  is  it,  that  as  Job  was  the  first,  so  he  was  the  last 
man  he  ever  so  tormented  ?  The  case  of  the  woman, 
whom  he  is  said  to  have  bound  eighteen  years,  is  no 
exception  to  this,  as  we  shall  show,  Section  v.  Let 
it  be  accounted  for  then,  why  satan  had  such  a  particu- 
lar hatred  against  Job,  above  all  other  men  before  or 
since.  It  is  easily  perceived,  these  things  are  ration- 
ally accounted  for,  on  the  presumption,  that  in  this  ac- 
count there  is  a  reference  to  the  evil  god  of  the  people 
among  whom  Job  lived.  Allowing  this,  the  account  is 
just  what  might  be  expected.  The  character  given  to  5a- 
^tan,  answers  to  that  of  their  god,  whom  they  believed 
to  be  the  author  and  director  of  all  evil. 

The   question   which   now  comes  forward  for  con- 
sideratioo,  is — Was  this  account  of  satan  introduced 


50  AN    INQUIRY ^PART    1. 

for  the  purpose  of  establishing,  or  was  it  jntrodaced  to 
refute  such  opinions  ?  Let  satan  here  be  considered, 
either  the  evil  principle  deified,  or  the  devil  of  Chris- 
tians, were  such  opinions  intended  to  be  sanctioned  by 
the  writer,  or  does  he  introduce  them,  to  expose  their 
fallacy,  and  establish  the  supremacy  of  the  one  living 
and  true  God  in  opposition  to  them?  All,  I  think, 
will  agree  that  the  whole  must  stand  approved  or  con- 
demned. No  middle  path  can  be  here  taken,  for  no 
ground  is  afforded  for  it.  It  is  then  a  matter  of  no 
consequence,  whether  we  consider  satan  in  this  account 
the  principle  of  evil  deified,  or,  that  he  was  the  Chris- 
tian's devil.  Whether  the  same  or  different,  I  shall 
proceed  to  show,  by  direct  and  I  think  conclusive  evi- 
dence, that  neither  of  them  had  any  influence  in  pro- 
ducing Job's  afflictions.  That  they  were  all  sent  by 
the  one  living  and  true  God,  whom  Job  feared  and 
obeyed,  is  evident. 

1st.  From  Job's  own  testimony  concerning  his  af- 
flictions. Job's  heathen  neighbors  supposed  their  evil 
god  Ahraman  was  the  cause  of  them.  Christians  be- 
lieve their  satan  or  devil  was  the  cause  of  them.  But 
does  Job  ascribe  them  to  either  ?  No  ;  when  one 
messenger  after  another  is  represented  as  announcing 
to  him  the  loss  of  his  property  and  at  last  the  death  of 
his  children,  he  says — '^  The  Lord  gave  and  the  Lord 
hath  taken  away  ;  blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Chap.  i.  2L  He  does  not  for  a  moment  admit  that 
either  Ahraman  or  the  devil  had  any  kind  of  concern 
in  his  afflictions.  He  no  more  admits  their  influence 
in  taking  away  his  property  and  children,  than  in  the 
bestowment  of  them.  The  trivins:  and  taking  them 
away,  are  alike  ascribed  to  Jehovah.  Similar  were 
his  views  and  feelings,  when  afflicted  with  sore  boils. 
His  wife  desired  him  to  curse  God  and  die.     But  ho 


AN    INC^UIRY PART    I.  51 

says  to  her — "Thou  speakest  as  one  of  the  foolish 
women  speaketh.  What !  shall  we  receiv^e  good  at 
the  hand  of  God,  and  shall  we  not  receive  evil  ?"  Job 
ii.  9,  10.  Does  this  look  like  acknowledging  the  Per- 
sian evil  god  or  the  Christian's  devil  ?  Notwithstand- 
ing the  popular  opinions,  that  Ahraman  was  the  cause 
of  all  evil,  the  severe  bodily  pain  he  suffered,  and  the 
taunts  of  his  wife,  he  holds  fast  his  integrity  in  the  true 
God.  Now,  periTiic  me  to  ask,  if  Job  had  believed, 
that  either  Ahraman  or  the  devil  brought  his  afflictions 
upon  him,  why  did  he  ascribe  them  all  to  the  true  God, 
without  reservation  ?  And  why  did  he  not  correct  his 
wife's  mistake,  by  telling  her  that  Ahraman  or  the 
devil  ought  to  be  cursed  ?  But  Job  had  no  faith  in 
either,  and  hence  he  told  her  that  she  spoke  as  one  of 
the  fooluh  QY  heathen  vvom^n  speaketh.  Job  allowed 
of  but  one  God,  and  it  is  evident,  that  his  adversity 
and  prosperity  are  both  alike  ascribed  to  him.  See 
chap.  xlii.  10— 12,  and  i.  21. 

2d.  The  speech  of  Job's  wife,  and  his  reply  to  her, 
show,  that  neither  Ahraman  nor  the  detail  was  the 
cause  of  his  afflictions.  She  no  doubt  heard  what  he 
said,  ch.  i.  21.  Upon  seeing  him  still  persisti-ng  in  his 
integrity,  under  his  affliction  of  the  boils,  she  was  pro- 
voked at  him,  and  in  taunting  language  says  to  him: 
''  dost  tl]ou  still  retain  thine  integrity  ?  Curse  God  and 
die."  On  the  word  rendered  to  curse,  Parkhurst  thus 
writes:  "The  lexicons  have  absurdly,  and  contrary 
to  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  given  to  this 
verb  the  sense  of  cursing  in  the  six  following  passages  : 
1  Kings  xxL  10,  13;  Job  i.  5,  11,  and  ii.  5,  9.  As 
to  the  two  first,  the  Seventy  render  5^re^,  in  both,  by 
eulogeo.  and  so  the  Vulg.  by  benedico,  to  bless.  And 
though  Jezebel  was  herself  an  abominable  idolatress, 


52  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I. 

yet,  as  the  law  of  Moses  still  continued  in  force,  she 
seems  to  have  been  wicked  enoucrh  to  have  destroyed 
Naboth  upon  the  false  accusation  of  blessing  the 
heathen  aleim  and  Moloch,  which  subjected  hirn  to 
death,  by  Deut.  xiii.  6 — 12.  and  xvii.  2 — 7.  Job's 
fear,  ch.  i.  5,  was  lest  his  sons  should  have  Messed  the 
false  aleim;  and  verse  11,  he  says,  ought  to  be  ren- 
dered— '  And  indeed  stretch  forth  thy  hand  now,  and 
touch  all  that  he  hath,  surely  he  hath  blessed  thee  to 
thy  face,'  i.  e.  hypocritically  ;  the  verb  beino;  used  in 
the  past  tense.  The  Seventy  render  it,  truly  he  will 
bless  thee  to  thy  face.  And  the  Vulgate — unless  he 
hath  blessed  thee  to  thy  face.  Com  p.  verses  5,  7. 
And  1  Kings  xx.  23.  Salan  brings  the  same  charge 
of  hypocrisy  against  Job,  chap.  ii.  5,  which  the  Seven- 
ty, Theodotian,  and  Vulgate  render  in  the  same  man- 
ner. And  at  verse  9,  his  wife  says  to  him,  ^^dost  thou 
yet  i^etain  thy  integrity,  thy  regard  for  the  true  God, 
blessing  the  aleim  and  dyifig,  or  even  to  death  ?" 
Thus  far  Parkhurst,  whose  remarks  shed  additional 
light  on  this  account.  They  agree  with  the  usage  of 
the  word,  which  is  rendered  to  bless,  in  other  texts  ; 
they  also  accord  with  the  charge  of  hypocrisy,  which 
is  brought  against  Job  by  his  friends,  throughout  the 
book.  But  what  deserves  particular  notice,  these  re- 
marks show,  that  Job  lived  among  a  people  who  had 
a  false  aleim  or  god,  and  a  contrast,  if  not  a  contest 
between  this  irod  and  Jehovah   is  set  fortli  in  the  ac- 

o 

count.  The  false  god  is  spoken  of  as  one,  and  not 
many  ;  and  what  god  could  this  be  but  Ahraman  ?  For 
the  Persians  had  only  two,  their  good  god  and  their  evil 
god.  That  a  contrast  is  set  forth  betwixt  the  false 
god  and  the  true,  is  evident  from  Job's  fear,  chap.  i.  5, 
lest  his  children  should  have  blessed  the  false  aleim,  or 
god,  instead  of  cursing  the  true  God,  as  in  the  com- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  53 

mon  version.  It  is  also  plain  from  the  speech  of  his 
wife,  who,  instead  of  desiring  Job  to  curse  the  true 
God,  expresses  her  surprise,  that  he  should  continue  to 
bless  him,  though  at  the  point  of  death  in  suffering 
from  his  hands.  It  is  apparent,  that  she  believed  in 
Ahraman,  and  entertained  the  opinions  concerning 
him  as  stated  above,  by  Prideaux.  *■  She  was  dis- 
pleased with  her  husband,  for  continuing  to  trust  in 
the  true  God,  at  the  gates  of  death,  and  even  blessing 
him  for  his  afflictions.  In  desiring  him  to  renounce 
his  confidence  in  the  true  God,  did  she  mean  that  he 
should  become  an  atheist,  or  live  without  any  God  ? 
No  ;  she  wished  him  to  trust  in  Ahraman,  the  author 
of  all  evil,  and  the  cause  of  all  his  afflictions.  Job 
had  despised  him,  and  continued  to  trust  in  the  true 
God  to  the  last.  She  therefore  wished  him  to  aban- 
don this  confidence,  and  trust  in  the  evil  god,  the 
true  author  of  his  afflictions.  By  doing  so,  he  would 
become  his  friend,  remove  his  afflictions,  or  terminate 
them  by  death. 

3d.  That  this  account  of  satan,  is  introduced  to 
be  condemned,  appears  from  the  reasonings  of  Job 
and  his  friends  throughout  the  whole  book.  Job's 
friends,  like  himself,  did  not  believe  in  Ahraman,  for 
they  maintain,  that  Jehovah,  on  account  of  his  hypoc- 
risy and  wickedness,  had  sent  such  afflictions  upon  him. 
But  1  ask,  does  any  one  of  them  ever  intimate  that 
satan,  whether  Persian  sod  or  Christian  devil,  had  pro- 
duced his  afflictions  ?  No  ;  they  are  to  a  man  agreed, 
that  they  were  the  doings  of  Jehovah,  nor  do  they  in- 
sinuate, that  he  used  satan  as  a  tool  in  producinor  thern. 
As  a  specimen  of  their  sentiments  on  this  subject,  let 
the  reader  consult  chap.  iv.  9,  and  v.  17,  18,  and  viii. 
3,  4.  Job  defends  himself  against  the  charge  of  hypo- 
crisy and  wickedness  brought  by  his  friends.     See  as 


54 


AN    INQ,IJIRY PART    I. 


examples,  chap.  vl.  4,  5,  vii.  20,  21,  ix.  16—18,  x. 
2,  xvi.  11—15,  and  xix.  21. 

We  may  then  appeal  to  every  candid  man,  v^hether 
Job's  friends  would  have  been  silent  about  satan  pro- 
ducing his  afflictions,  if  they  believed  so.  And  had 
they  believed  in  satan,  or  Ahraman,  the  author  of  all 
evil,  would  they  have  ascribed  his  afflictions  to  Jeho- 
vah ?  Besides  ;  had  Job  or  his  friends  believed,  that 
Jehovah  used  satan  as  an  instrument  in  inflicting  ihem, 
why  is  nothing  said  about  it,  either  in  their  charge  or 
his  defence  ?  In  repelling  their  accusations,  would  Job 
have  failed  to  urge  that  his  afflictions  arose  from  satan's 
great  enmity  against  him,  had  he  but  suspected  that  this 
was  true.  All  know,  that  people  are  not  very  scrupu- 
lous now  in  blaming  the  devil.  Nothins^  could  have 
been  easier,  or  more  natural,  than  for  Job  to  repel  the 
charges  against  him  by  saying,  that  satan  hated  him, 
and  had  thus  afflicted  him.  Can  any  man  then  be- 
lieve, that  this  account  was  introduced  to  establish  the 
existence  of  such  an  evil  being,  yet  this  be  contradicted 
by  Job  and  his  friends  throughout  the  book  ?  If  true, 
why  not  rather  go  on  to  confirm  such  a  doctrine.  Is  it 
objected — "  if  false  why  introduce  it  all  ?"  I  answer  ; 
for  the  purpose  of  refuting  such  an  opinion,  and  for  es- 
tablishing the  unify  and  supremacy  of  the  true  God.  It 
is  well  known,  that  false  gods  are  often  introduced  in 
Scripture,  in  contrast  with  the  true,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  exposing  their  absurdity.  But  1  ask,  is  any  fcdse  god 
ever  allowed  to  be  able  to  do  good  or  evil  ?  No  ;  they 
are  challenged  to  do  either,  to  prove  that  they  are  gods. 
It  is  admitted  by  every  intelligent  man,  that  in  the  after 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  New,  there  are 
allusions  to  the  evil  principle  deified,  or  the  evil  god  of 
the  Persians.  And  to  darkness  as  the  symbol  of  this 
god.     See  a  specimen  of  these,  and  how  the  sacred 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  65 

writers  expose  such  a  doctrine,  Isai.  xl  v.  5 — 7,  2  Cor.  vi, 
15,  X.  3  and  xi.  13,  14,  Eph.  vi.  10. 

4tli.  Job's  aiSictions  are  referred  to,  James  v.  11, 
and  bis  patience  under  tbem,  is  set  forth  as  an  ex- 
ample to  us,  but  are  not  ascribed  to  satan  but  to  Je- 
hov^ah.  Indeed,  no  sacred  writers,  these  two  chapters 
excepted,  say  or  insinuate,  that  Ahraman  or  satan  had 
any  influence  in  producing  them.  But  I  have  a  right 
to  demand,  why  no  sacred  writer  has  donetbis,  if  they 
believed  as  most  people  do  now  that  satan  was  the  au- 
thor of  Job's  afflictions?  If  they  had  the  same  view 
of  those  two  chapters  as  most  people  now  have,  is  it 
possible  that  they  would  have  been  silent  on  such  a 
subject  ? 

5th.  However  prone  the  Jews  were  to  idolatry,  and 
the  superstitions  of  the  nations  around  them,  it  was  a 
truth  obviously  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  that  their  God 
was  good,  and  that  he  had  no  evil  being  as  a  rival  to 
him.  So  far  from  giving  any  countenance  to  an  evil 
being  called  Ahraman,  Satan,  Devil,  or  by  any  other 
name,  all  witchcraft,  necromarcy,  or  appeals  to  any 
other  being  or  power  stand  condemned,  and  the  Jews 
were  solemnly  charged  to  have  no  concern  with  them. 
Jehovah,  and  he  alone,  is  declared  to  be  the  creator, 
preserver,  and  ruler  of  all  things,  and  all  beings  in  the 
universe.  Life  and  death,  sickness  and  health,  pros- 
perity and  adversity,  are  all  ascribed  to  him..  See  Gen, 
i.  1  ;  Dan.  iv,  35  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  6,  7  :  Isa.  xlv.  7  ;  Amos  iii. 
6  ;  Micah  i.  12  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  13—15  ;  Prov.  xvi.  4,  9  and 
xxi.  30.  The  idea  of  an  evil  being,  which  Christians  call 
the  devil  and  satan,  and  other  nations  by  a  variety  of 
names,  found  no  place  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  That 
the  Jews  learnt  such  opinions  from  the  heathen,  we  shall 
see  in  the  next  Section.  In  concluding  our  remarks 
on  this  account  of  satan  in  the  book  of  Job,  let  us  com- 


5o  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

pare  what  is  said  in  it,  with  the  above  quotation  from 
Prideaux,  and  we  shall  see  all  that  has  been  advanced 
strongly  confirmed. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  term  satan.  We  have  seen 
that  this  word  signifies  an  adversary.  That  person  or 
thing,  is  called  a  satan  to  another,  which  stands  in  his 
way,  or  in  any  shape  opposes  him.  Thus,  the  angel 
of  Jehovah,  was  a  satan  to  Baalam,  and  the  writing 
sent  to  Ahasuerus,  was  a  satan  to  the  Jews.  Satan,  in 
this  account,  is  represented  as  opposed  both  to  God 
and  Job.  He  was  their  adversary  or  satan.  Prideaux, 
in  the  above  quotation,  informs  us,  Lhat  Ahraman  the 
evil  god,  was  opposed  to  the  good  God,  and  that  this 
opposition  would  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world.  He 
also  informs  us  that  the  evil  sod  was  considered  the 
author  and  director  of  all  evil.  Tins  is  precisely  the 
representation  here  given  of  satan.  All  Job's  afflic- 
tions are  supposed  to  be  the  doings  of  satan.  Ortho- 
dox people  contend  that  this  was  the  case,  and  that 
satan  is  their  devil.  They  have  then  got  a  heathen 
god,  or  the  principle  of  evil  deified,  a  mere  nonentity 
for  a  devil.  But  is  this  very  honorable  to  Christianity? 
And  is  it  like  persons,  who  reverence  the  word  of  God, 
flatly  to  contradict  Job,  in  ascribing  afflictions  to  satan 
which  he  ascribes  to  Jehovah  ?  Job  contends,  that  the 
good  God  was  the  author  of  his  afflictions,  as  well  as 
his  prospeiity.  Those  who  believed  in  the  evil  god, 
did  not  deny,  but  the  good  God  was  the  author  of  his 
prosperity,  but  would  not  admit  him  to  be  the  author 
of  his  adversity.  Job  maintained  that  Jehovah  was  the 
author  of  both,  blessing  his  name  when  he  took  away, 
as  well  as  when  he  gave.  By  this  the  excellency  of 
his  character  was  made  manifest. 

But  again  ;  in  the  above  quotation  from  Prideaux, 
it  is  not  alleged,  that  the  good  and  evil  gods  alwavs 


,  AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  57 

produced  good  and  evil  by  their  own  immediate  agen- 
cy, but  tluit  these  were  brouujht  about  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  second  causes.  Though  Job  ascribes  his 
prosperity  and  adversity  to  Jehovah,  yet  he  and  all  the 
scripture  writers  represent  him,  as  accomplishing  both 
by  means.  Looking  at  the  first  two  chapters  of  Job, 
the  agents  by  which  Job's  afflictions  were  produced, 
are  distinctly  mentioned.  For  example,  the  Sabean 
and  Chaldean  freebooters  carried  away  his  flocks. — 
Were  not  they  then  a  satan  to  Job,  in  the  common 
scripture  usage  of  this  term  ?  And  does  not  their  very 
manner  of  life,  exactly  agree  to  what  satan  says,  chap, 
i.  7  ?  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  satan,  whence  comest 
thou  ?"  Well,  what  answer  does  he  make  ?  He  says, 
'•'  from  going  to  and  fro  in  the  earth,  and  from  walking 
up  and  down  in  it."  Just  such  an  answer  as  those 
freebooters  would  have  given,  for  it  was  their  mode  of 
life  to  roam  about  committing  such  depredations.  Yea, 
satan  is  the  very  name  given  to  such  persons  in  the 
East  to  this  day.  Messrs.  Fisk  and  King,  two  of  the 
Palestine  missionaries,  thus  write  :  "  For  two  hours, 
however,  as  we  moved  along  our  attendants  were  en- 
gaged in  loud  and  violent  disputes  with  these  and  other 
companies  of  Bedouins,  who  came  up  after  they  went 
away.  They  extorted  a  few  dollars  from  the  Arme- 
nians and  Greeks,  and  at  last  took  an  ass  from  one  of 
the  Arabs.  Our  Shekh  knew  all  these  freebooters,  and 
it  is  probably  owing  to  his  acquaintance  w^ith  them,  and 
his  faithfulness  to  us,  that  they  were  so  easily  satisfied, 
and  that  we  met  with  so  little  trouble  from  them.  He 
says,  most  of  the  Bedouins  are  much  worse  than  these, 
and  yet  he  called  these  satans  (shaitan)."  See  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  vol.  vii.  p.  222.  Such  is  the  account 
given  us  by  two  orthodox  missionaries.  If  the  writer 
of  the  book  of  Job,  did  not  include  the  Sabean  and 


58  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

Chaldean  freebooters  in  the  term  satan,  all  will  allow, 
that  the  ancient  and  present  u^age  of  this  word  in  the 
East  fully  warranted  him.  We  see  then,  that  there 
was  no  need  for  the  assistance  of  a  fallen  angel,  to  pro- 
duce this  part  of  Job's  afflictions.  The  agent  by  which 
he  lost  his  children,  is  as  distinctly  mentioned.  We 
are  told,  chap.  i.  18,  19.  "  That  a  great  wind  from  the 
wilderness,  smote  the  four  corners  of  the  house,  and  it 
fell  upon  them  and  killed  them."  Such  was  the  cause, 
which  produced  this  effect,  nor  do  we  perceive,  that 
the  aid  of  any  evil  being  was  required  to  accomplish 
it.  We  may  just  as  well  accuse  satan  of  blowing  down 
every  house  which  is  destroyed  by  a  tornado.  Job's 
sheep  were  killed  by  lightning,  and  it  and  the  wind  are 
agents  in  the  natural  world  by  which  God  accomplishes 
his  pleasure,  over  which  Ahraman  or  the  Christian's 
devil  have  no  control. 

Again  ;  looking  at  this  account,  and  comparing  it 
with  the  quotation  from  Prideaux,  we  see  why  Job's 
boils  are  expressly  ascribed  to  satan,  without  any  other 
agent  being  concerned  in  their  production.  All  evil 
indiscriminately,  was  ascribed  to  the  evil  god  or  satan, 
as  all  good  was  to  the  good  god.  But,  as  there  was  no 
visible  agent  to  which  the  boils  could  be  ascribed,  no 
agent  in  this  case  is  mentioned.  Satan,  or  the  evil  god, 
has  to  father  this  affliction  himself,  without  the  assis- 
tance of  any  agent.  Hence  it  is  said,  satan  smote  Job 
with  the  boils,  which  is  not  said  respecting  his  other 
afflictions,  though  the  whole  aspect  of  the  account,  is  in 
agreement  with  considering  him  the  author  and  director 
of  all  evil.  I  shall  only  add,  that  it  has  always  ap- 
peared strange,  that  in  this  account,  satan  should  be 
represented  as  conversing  freely  and  familiarly  with 
God.*  But  if  the  account  be  as  I  have  stated,  the  good 
and  evil  gods  are  here  only  represented  as  conversing 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I.  59 

together.     It  was  in  unison  with  the  popular  opinions 
concerning  them. 

In  concluding  our  remarks,  let  us  briefly  notice  some 
points  of  similarity  in  the  Magian  creed,  to  those  of 
Christian  creeds  in  the  present  day. 

The  Persians  then  had  one  good  being  or  god,  and 
also  07ie  evil  being.  Or,  as  Prideaux  observes,  "that 
is  to  say  God  and  the  devil."  Christians  in  this  are 
perfectly  agreed  with  them,  for  they  believe  in  one 
God,  and  also  one  devil.  Again  ;  the  Persians  believed, 
that  these  two  gods  were  the  authors  of  all  good  and 
evil  in  the  world.  In  this  also  Christians  agree  with 
them,  for  all  good  they  ascribe  to  God,  and  impute  all 
evil  to  satan  or  the  devil.  Further ;  the  Persians  made 
darkness  the  symbol  of  their  evil  god.  So  do  Chris- 
tians. When  they  speak  of  the  devil  he  is  described 
as  black,  dark,  and  hideous,  and  as  loving  darkness, 
dwelling  in  darkness,  and  keeping  men  in  darkness,  and 
will  lead  them  at  last  into  eternal  darkness.  Again  ; 
the  Persians  believed  that  their  good  god  was  eternal. 
Some  believed  also,  that  their  evil  god  was  eternal. — • 
About  this,  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion.  So  all 
Christians  believe  their  God  to  be  eternal,  but  about 
the  devil  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion.  Though  none 
of  them  believe  him  to  have  been  from  all  eternity,  yet 
some  of  them  believe  that  he  is  to  live  forever,  and 
shall  remain  eternally  the  same  wicked  being.  Others 
of  them  think,  that  after  a  long  period  of  punisliment, 
he  will  be  either  struck  out  of  existence,  or  be  redeem- 
ed and  made  eternally  happy.  But  again,  the  Per- 
sians believed,  that  there  was  a  continual  opposition 
between  their  good  god  and  evil  god,  and  that  this 
should  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Then,  the 
good  god  shall  overcome  the  evil  god,  and  thence- 
forward each  of  them  shall  have  his  world  to  himself, 


60  AN     INQUIRY PART    I. 

that  is,  the  good  god  liis  world  with  all  good  men  with 
him,  and  the  evil  god  his  world  with  all  evil  men  with 
him.  Christians  contend,  that  there  is  a  continual  op- 
position between  their  God  and  the  devil,  and  that  this 
opposition  shall  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Then, 
God  is  to  overcome  the  devil,  and  from  that  time  hence- 
forward, God  is  to  have  his  world  and  all  good  men 
with  him,  and  the  devil  is  to  have  his  world,  and  all 
wicked  men  with  him.  Such  are  a  few  of  the  leading 
points  of  similarity,  between  the  ancient  Magian  faith 
and  the  faith  of  Christians  in  our  day,  respecting  God, 
the  devil,  and  future  punishment.  It  is  but  proper  and 
fair  to  notice 

2d.  Some  of  the  points  of  dissimilarity  between  them. 
The  Magians  believed,  that  their  good  and  evil  gods 
were  only  "two  principles."  These  principles  they 
not  only  personified,  but  deified  and  worshipped.  When 
Xerxes  prayed  for  evil  on  his  enemies,  "  he  addressed 
his  prayer  to  Arimanius  the  evil  god,  and  not  to  Or- 
masdes,  their  good  god."  Christians  believe  their  God 
and  the  devil  to  be,  not  two  principles,  but  two  beings. 
Their  devil  is  not  only  a  being,  but  was  once  an  an- 
gelic being,  but  for  his  sin  and  rebellion  was  cast  out 
of  heaven.  Christians  do  not  worship  their  devil.  But 
alas,  too  many  who  profess  to  be  Christians,  like  Xerxes, 
when  they  wish  evil  on  their  enemies,  pray  to  the  devil. 
Christians  have  a  great  numberof  names  for  their  devil. 
But  it  is  apparent,  that  whether  such  a  being  is  called 
Ahraman,  Arimanius,  satan,  or  devil,  the  leading  fea- 
tures of  his  character  among  all  nat'ons  are  the  same. 
The  evil  god  has  become  the  Christian's  devil.  In 
fact,  they  make  their  devil  the  worst  being,  for  though 
it  was  believed  that  their  evil  god,  should  at  the  end  of 
the  world  have  a  world  to  himself  with  all  wicked  men, 
yet  it  does  not  appear,  that  they  believed  he  was  to  be 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  61 

their  eternal  tormentor.  But  it  is  well  known,  that  this 
is  a  principal  article  in  most  orthodox  creeds,  and  no 
man  would  be  deemed  orthodox,  who  denied  it.  I  shall 
only  add,  that  though  the  Persians  and  Christians  agree 
in  hating  Ahraman  or  the  devil,  yet  the  latter  have  not 
carried  their  hatred  so  far  as  to  write  the  devil's  name 
inverted.  In  the  next  Section  we  shall  see,  that  the 
Magian  creed  was  much  improved  by  Zoroaster,  and 
that  Christians  have  not  only  adopted  his  sentiments, 
but  the  very  language  in  which  he  expressed  them. 

Psalm  xxxviii.  20,  comes  next  to  be  considered. — - 
"  They  also  that  render  evil  for  good  are  mine  adver- 
saries.'^ Here  the  word  satan  occurs  in  the  plural,  and 
is  rendered  as  usual  adversaries.  It  is  useless  to  make 
any  remarks  on  this  text,  for  its  context  clearly  shows, 
that  David  is  not  speaking  of  fallen  angels  but  of  men. 
In  verse  19  he  calls  them  his  enemies,  and  speaks  of 
them  as  lively,  strong,  and  multiplied. 

Psalm  Ixxi.  13.  "Let  them  be  confounded  and  con- 
sumed, that  are  adversaries  to  my  soul."  The  word 
satan\s  also  used  here  in  the  plural,  and  is  again  ren- 
dered adversaries.  In  verse  10,  David  calls  these  satans 
or  adversaries  his  enemies,  and  the  whole  Psalm  shows, 
that  he  is  not  speaking  of  wicked  spirits  but  of  wicked 
men. 

Psalm  cix,  4.  "  For  my  love  they  are  my  adversa- 
ries.^^ Here  again  the  word  satan  occurs  in  the  plural 
form,  and  is  rendered  adversaries.  It  is  generally  con- 
tended, that  this  psalm  relates  to  Christ  and  his  adver- 
saries, or  satans.  It  is  certain,  that  verse  8  is  quoted 
Acts  i.  and  is  applied  to  Judas.  This  term  occurs  in 
several  other  parts  of  the  psalm  which  we  shall  briefly 
notice.  In  verse  6  it  is  said,  '^  set  thou  a  wicked  man 
over  him  :  and  let  satan  stand  at  his  right  hand." — 
Here,  the  word  satan  is  left  untranslated,  but  is  render* 
5 


62  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

ed  adversary  in  the  margin.  In  the  Jewish  mode  of 
parallelism,  a  wicked  man  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse, 
is  the  same  as  satan  in  the  second.  For  an  illustration 
of  what  is  said  about  satan,  or  a  wicked  man  standing 
at  his  right  hand  when  he  shall  be  judged  in  verse  7, 
see  on  Zach.  iii.  1,  2,  below.  In  verse  '^O,  it  is  said — - 
"  let  this  be  the  reward  of  mine  adversaries  from  the 
Lord,  and  of  them  that  speak  evil  against  my  soul." — 
The  word  satan  is  here  again  used  in  the  plural,  and 
rendered  adversaries.  It  is  rendered  in  the  same  way, 
verse  29.  "  Let  mine  adversaries  be  clothed  with 
shame,  and  let  them  cover  themselves  with  their  own 
confusion,  as  with  a  mantle."  On  the  whole  of  this 
psalm,  and  the  use  of  the  term  satan  in  it,  we  would 
merely  remark,  that  no  person  who  reads  it,  can  sup- 
pose that  there  is  the  least  reference  to  a  fallen  angel. 
It  is  evident,  if  the  psalm  refers  to  the  Messiah,  Judas 
and  the  persecuting  Jews  are  designated  by  the  term 
satan  ;  and  shows  us  the  propriety  of  the  terms  devil 
and  satan  being  applied  to  them  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  we  shall  afterwards  see. 

Zach.  iii.  1,2,  is  the  last  place  where  the  term  satan 
occurs  in  the  Old  Testament.  "  And  he  showed  me 
Joshua  the  high  priest  standing  before  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  and  satan  standing  at  his  right  hand  to  resist  h  im 
And  the  Lord  said  unto  satan,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee, 
O  satan  :  even  the  Lord  that  hath  chosen  Jerusalem, 
rebuke  thee  :  is  not  this  a  brand  plucked  out  of  the  fire." 
Here  the  v^'ord  satan  is  again  left  untranslated,  except 
in  verse  1,  where  it  is  rendered  <^  to  resist  himJ'  In 
the  margin,  it  is,  to  "  Z>e  his  adversary."  In  the 
Seventy's  version,  the  word  satan  is  throughout  this 
passage  rendered  diabolos.  On  the  whole  of  it  I  re- 
mark, 

1st.  Let  the  word  satan  be  only  rendered  adversa- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  63 

ry  throughout  these  verses,  and  the  idea  of  a  fallen 
angel  vanishes.  The  reader  can  easily  put  this  re- 
mark to  the  trial,  by  substituting  the  term  adversary 
for  satan,  in  reading  the  passage.  From  our  habit  of 
associating  the  idea  of  a  fallen  angel  with  the  term 
satan,  and  not  with  the  word  adversary,  this  and  some 
other  tests  are  supposed  to  teach  such  a  doctrine.  But 
can  this  false  association  establish  it  ? 

2d.  If  it  were  necessary,  it  could  be  shown,  what 
satan  or  adversary  was  meant.  Let  any  one  read 
Ezra,  chaps,  iii.  and  iv.,  and  note  particularly  what  is 
said  concerning  Tatnai,  and  Shethar-boznai,  in  chap. 
V,  and  little  doubt  can  remain,  that  they  were  the  satan 
or  adversary  referred  to.  [t  is  allowed,  that  Zacha- 
riah  prophesied  about  tlie  time  the  events  in  the  book 
of  Ezra  took  place.  Compare  with  this,  what  is  said 
on  Ezra  iv.  6,  above.  If  people  will  interpret  this 
passage  literally  of  a  fallen  angel,  why  not  also  inter- 
pret the  following  chapters,  in  the  same  book,  literally. 
See  chaps,  i.,  ii.,  v.,  vi. 

3d.  In  this  passage  and  in  Psal.  cix.6,  above,  Jahn 
thinks  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  forms  of  judicial  trials 
in  ancjent  times.  He  thus  writes  :  "  The  ceremonies 
which  were  observed  in  conducting  a  judicial  trial, 
were  as  follows: — -1.  The  accuser  and  the  accused 
both  made  their  appearance  before  the  judge  or  judges, 
Deut.  XXV.  1,  who  sat  with  legs  crossed  upon  the  floor, 
which  was  furnished  for  their  accommodation,  with 
carpet  and  cushions.  A  secretary  was  present,  at 
least  in  more  modern  times,  who  wrote  down  the  sen- 
tence, and  indeed  every  thing  in  relation  to  the  trial ; 
for  instance,  the  articles  of  agreement,  that  might  be 
entered  into,  previous  to  the  commencement  of  the 
judicial  proceedings,  Isa.  x,  1,  2.  Jer.  xxxii.  1 — 14. 
The  Jews  assert  that  there  were  two  secretariesj  th@ 


64  AN    INQ,UIRY PART   I, 

one  being  seated  to  the  right  of  the  judge,  who  wrote 
the  sentence  of  not  guilty,  the  other  to  the  left,  who 
wrote  the  sentence  of  condemnation,  Comp.  Matth. 
XXV.  33 — 46.  That  an  apparitor  or  beadle  was  pre- 
sent, is  apparent  from  other  sources.  2.  The  accuser 
was  denominated,  in  Hebrew,  satan,  or  the  adversa- 
ry, Zach.  iii.  I — 3.  Psalra  cix.  6.  The  judge  or 
judges  were  seated,  but  both  of  the  parties  implicated 
stood  up,  the  accuser  standing  to  the  right  hand  of  the 
accused.  The  latter,  at  least,  after  the  captivity^ 
when  the  cause  was  one  of  great  consequence,  ap- 
peared, with  hair  dishevelled,  and  in  a  garment  of 
mourning." 

Such  are  all  the  texts  in  the  Old  Testament,  where 
the  term  satan  occurs.  The  reader  can  now  judge 
for  himself,  if  it  is  ever  used  by  the  writers  as  \\\Qname 
of  a  fallen  angel,  who  ruined  our  first  parents  and  all 
their  posterity. 


SECTION  IV. 

THE  OPINION,  THAT  THE  DEVIL  OR  SATAN  IS  A  REAI/ 
BEING,  WITH  OTHER  CONNECTED  OPINIONS,  SHOWN 
TO  HAVE  THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  HEATHENISM. 

It  has  been  shown  in  the  two  preceding  Sections, 
that  the  Old  Testament  gives  no  countenance  to  the 
common  doctrine  of  a  fallen  angel,  under  the  name 
serpent,  satan,  or  any  other.  Indeed,  we  think  it  has 
been  established,  that  the  account  of  satan  in  the  first 
two  chapters  of  Job,  was  introduced  for  the   express 


AN    INQUIRY PART   I.  65 

purpose  of  refuting  such  opinions.  A  very  important 
inquiry  arises,  How  came  such  opinions  to  be  imbibed 
by  Christians,  become  so  current  in  the  world,  and 
even  seem  to  derive  countenance  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament? To  account  for  these  and  other  things  shall 
be  our  business  in  ttie  present  Section. 

1st.  fn  the  early  stages  of  the  Jewish  history,  we 
read  of  witches  and  witchcraft,  injunctions  are  given 
against  these,  before  we  hear  any  thing  about  satan  or 
the  devil.  But  nothing  is  said  to  them  about  witch- 
craft, until  they  were  about  to  enter  Canaan.  Many 
of  the  injunctions  delivered  to  the  Jewish  nation,  were 
for  the  purpose  of  fortifying  them  against  such  heathen 
notions,  and  preserving  them  in  the  fear  and  service  of 
the  one  living  and  true  God.  See,  concerning  this, 
Levit.  xix.  ^,  31  ;  xx.  6,  27;  Deut.  xviii.  9—12; 
Ex«d,  xxii.  1.8.  Comp.  Isai.  xlvii.  12,  13  ;  1  Sam. 
chap,  xxviii.  The  inhabitants  of  Canaan  were  given 
to  idolatry  and  witchcraft,  with  similar  superstitions. 
But  such  a  being  as  Christians  call  the  devil,  was 
neither  worshipped  nor  known  among  them.  They 
had  abundance  of  idols,  but  no  devil  ov  satan,  nor  are 
the  Jews  cautioned  to  beware  of  imbibing  such  an 
opinion.  It  is  then  a  very  great  mistake,  which  many 
good  people  have  made,  in  calling  witchcraft  the 
devil's  art,  and  in  thinking  witches  and  wiz2;ards  were 
in  league  with  him.  Concerning  this,  Micliaelis,  on 
the  laws  of  Moses,  thus  writes,  vol.  iv.  page  89 :  ''  We 
must,  however,  entertain  very  different  sentiments  on 
this  point,  in  reference  to  the  time  of  Moses.  For  in 
the  Biblical  writings  prior  to  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
we  meet  with  very  little  notice  of  the  devil,  and  it 
would  seem  that  the  effects  which  he  could  produce 
on  the  material  world,  were  considered  as  but  very 
tnfling.     The  wizzards  of  those  days  rather  ascribed 


66  AN    INQUIRY PART  I. 

the  efficacy  of  their  conjurations  to  other  gods ;  and 
therefore,  in  the  Israelitish  polity,  witchcraft  was  com- 
monly accounted  a  species  of  idolatry,  and,  of  course, 
most  severely  punishable.  Hence  orthodox  theology, 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  could  look  upon  it  in  no  other 
light,  than  as  an  imposture  :  for  no  one  could  maintain, 
that  it  operated  preternaturally,  without  admitting  the 
existence  of  other  gods,  and  their  power  over  the  ma- 
terial world."  The  Jews  before  they  entered  Canaan 
knew  nothing  about  the  devil.  Nor  did  its  idolatrous 
inhabitants,  for  he  was  not  known  in  that  part  of  the 
world.  If  then,  as  now,  he  walked  about  seeking 
whom  he  might  devour,  it  is  very  unaccountable  he 
should  not  be  familiarly  known  in  Canaan,  a  land  full 
of  idols,  and  witches,  and  all  manner  of  wickedness. 
It  seems  all  these  could  exist  in  those  days  without  any 
devil  to  produce  them.  Nor  is  Moses,  or  rather  God, 
under  any  apprehension,  that  he  would  visit  that 
country.  We  shall  see  that  the  Jews  were  obliged 
to  go  to  a  foreign  land  to  find  the  devil. 

2d,  The  Jews  were  carried  to  Babylon,  and  spent 
seventy  years  in  captivity.  Here,  the  Magian  reli- 
gion, revived  and  improved  by  Zoroaster,  prevailed  ; 
and  here  we  shall  find  that  they  became  acquainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  devil,  and  with  other  religious 
opinions  not  found  in  their  scriptures.  To  this  point 
I  shall  now  turn  the  attention  of  the  reader.  Pri- 
deaux,  vol.  i.  pp.  219 — 240,  gives  us  an  account  of 
Zoroaster,  his  religion,  and  its  success;  a  few  brief  ex- 
tracts from  which  I  shall  only  make.  He  says — "  In 
the  time  of  his  (Darius  Hystaspes)  reign  first  appeared 
in  Persia  the  famous  prophet  of  the  Magians,  whom 
the  Persians  call  Zerdusht,  or  Zaratush,  and  the 
Greeks,  Zoroaster,  He  was  the  greatest  impostor, 
except  Mahomet,  that  ever  appeared  in  the  world,  and 


AN    INQUIRY PART   I.  67 

had  all  the  craft  and  enterprising  holdness  of  that 
Arab,  but  much  more  knowledge  ;  for  he  was  excel- 
lently skilled  in  all  the  learning  of  the  East  that  was 
in  his  time;  whereas  the  other  could  neither  read  nor 
write  ;  and  particularly  he  was  thoroughly  versed  in 
the  Jewish  religion,  and  in  all  the  sacred  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament  that  were  then  extant,  which 
makes  it  most  likely,  that  he  was,  as  to  his  origin,  a 
Jew.  And  it  is  generally  said  of  him,  that  he  had 
been  a  servant  to  one  of  the  prophets  of  Israel,  and 
that  it  was  by  this  means  that  he  came  to  be  so  well 
skilled  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  all  other  Jewish 
knowledge  ;  which  is  a  further  proof  that  he  was  of 
that  people ;  it  not  being  likely  that  a  prophet  of  Is- 
rael should  entertain  him  as  a  servant,  or  instruct  him 
as  a  disciple,  if  he  were  not  of  the  same  seed  of  Is- 
rael, as  well  as  of  the  same  religion  with  him  ;  and 
that  especially  since  it  was  the  usage  of  that  people, 
by  principle  of  religion,  as  well  as  by  long  received 
custom  among  them,  to  separate  themselves  from  all 
other  nations,  as  far  as  they  were  able.  And  it  is 
farther  to  be  taken  notice  of,  that  most  of  those  who 
speak  of  his  original,  say,  that  he  was  of  Palestine, 
within  which  country  the  land  of  Judea  was.  And 
all  this  put  together,  amounts  with  me  to  a  convincing 
proof  that  he  was  first  a  Jew,  and  that  by  birth,  as 
well  as  religion,  before  he  took  upon  him  to  be  pro- 
phet of  the  Magian  sect. 

"  He  did  not  found  a  new  religion,  as  his  successor 
in  imposture,  Mahomet  did;  but  only  took  upon  him  to 
revive  and  reform  an  old  one,  that  of  the  Magians, 
Nvhich  had  been  for  many  ages  past  the  national 
religion  of  the  Medes,  as  well  as  of  the  Persians :  for 
it  having  fallen  into  disgrace  on  the  death  of  those  ring- 
leaders of  that  sect,  who  had  usurped  the  sovereignty 


68  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

after  the  death  of  Cambyses,  and  the  slaughter  which 
was  then  made  of  all  the  chief  men  among  them,  it  sunk 
so  low,  that  it  became  almost  extinct,  and  Sabianism 
every  where  prevailed  against  it,  Darius  and  most  of 
his  followers  on  that  occasion  going  over  to  it.  But 
the  affection  which  the  people  had  for  the  religion  of 
their  forefathers,  and  which  they  had  been  all  brought 
up  in,  not  being  easily  to  be  rooted  out,  Zoroaster  saw 
that  the  revival  of  tnis  was  the  best  game  of  imposture 
that  he  could  then  play  ;  and,  having  so  good  an  old 
stock  to  graft  upon,  he  did  with  the  greater  ease  make 
all  his  new  scions  to  grow  which  he  inserted  into  it. 

"  The  ciiief  reformation  which  he  made  in  the  Ma- 
gian  religion  was  in  the  first  principle  of  it :  for  where- 
as before  they  had  held  the  being  of  two  first  causes, 
the  first  light,  or  the  good  god,  wlio  was  the  author  of 
all  good  ;  and  the  other  darkness,  or  the  evil  god,  who 
was  the  author  of  all  evil ;  and  that  of  the  mixture  of 
these  two,  as  they  were  in  a  continual  struggle  with 
each  other,  all  things  were  made;  he  introduced  a  prin- 
ciple superior  to  them  both,  one  supreme  God,  who 
created  both  light  and  darkness,  and  out  of  these  two, 
according  to  the  alone  pleasure  of  his  own  will  made 
all  things  else  that  are,  according  to  what  is  said  in  the 
xlv.  chapter  of  Isaiah,  5,  6,  7.  "  I  am  the  Lord,  and 
there  if  none  else :  there  is  no  God  besides  me  ;  I 
girded  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  me,  that  they 
may  know  from  the  rising  of  the  sun,  and  froni  the 
west,  that  there  is  none  besides  me.  1  am  the  Lord, 
and  there  is  none  else.  I  form  the  light  and  create 
darkness.  I  make  peace  and  create  evil,  I  the  Lord  do 
all  these  thin(]js."  For  iheso  words  beino:  directed  to 
Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  must  be  understood  as  spoken  in 
reference  to  the  Persian  sect  of  the  Magians,  who  then 
held  light  and  darkness,  or  good  and  evil,  to  be  the  su- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  69 

preme  beings,  without  acknowledging  the  great  god 
who  is  superior  to  both.  And  I  doubt  not  it  was  from 
hence  that  Zoroaster  had  the  hint  of  mending  this  great 
absurdity  in  their  theology.  But  to  avoid  making  God 
the  author  of  evil,  his  doctrine  was,  that  God  originally 
and  directly  created  only  light  or  good,  and  that  dark- 
ness or  evil  followed  it  by  consequence,  as  the  shadow 
doth  the  person  ;  that  light  or  good  had  only  a  real  pro- 
duction from  God,  and  the  other  afterwards  resulted 
from  it,  as  the  defect  thereof.  In  sum,  his  doctrine  as 
to  this  particular  was,  that  there  was  one  Supreme 
Being  independent  and  self-existing  from  all  eternity. 
That  under  him  there  were  two  angels,  one  the  angel 
of  light,  who  is  the  author  and  director  of  all  good  ;  and 
the  other  the  other  the  angel  of  darkness,  who  is  the 
author  and  director  of  all  evil ;  and  that  these  two,  out 
of  the  mixture  of  lio;ht  and  darkness,  made  all  things 
that  are  ;  that  they  are  in  a  perpetual  struggle  with 
each  other;  and  that  where  the  angel  of  light  prevails, 
there  the  most  is  good,  and  where  the  angel  of  dark- 
ness prevails,  there  the  most  is  evil ;  that  this  struggle 
shall  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  that  then  there 
shall  be  a  general  resurrection,  and  a  day  of  judgment, 
wherein  just  retribution  shall  be  rendered  to  all  accord- 
ing to  their  works;  after  which  the  angel  of  darkness, 
and  his  disciples,  shall  go  into  a  world  of  their  own, 
where  they  shall  suffer  in  everlasting  darkness  the  pun- 
ishments of  their  evil  deeds  ;  and  the  angel  of  light, 
and  his  disciples,  shall  also  go  into  a  world  of  their  own, 
where  they  shall  receive  in  everlasting  light  the  reward 
due  unto  their  good  deeds  ;  and  that  after  this  they  shall 
remain  separated  forever,  and  light  and  darkness  be  no 
more  mixed  together  to  all  eternity.  And  all  this  the 
remainder  of  that  sect,  which  is  now  in  Persia  and  India, 


70  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

do,  without  any  variation,  after  so  many  ages,  still  hold 
even  to  this  day." 

On  these  extracts,  and  other  things  stated  in  the 
pages  referred  to,  1  shall  make  a  few  general  remarks. 
Zoroaster  being  a  Jew,  well  acquainted  with  the  Jew- 
ish scriptures,  and  skilled  in  all  the  learning  of  the  East, 
was  pre-eminently  qualified  for  the  game  of  imposture 
which  he  played.  He  did  not  invent  a  new  religion, 
but  only  revived  and  improved  the  ancient  iMagian  re- 
ligion. As  Prideaux  says — "  He  grafted  all  his  new 
scions  on  this  old  stock  and  they  grew."  The  Magian 
religion  "  had  been  for  many  ages  past  the  ancient  na- 
tional religion  of  the  Medes  as  well  as  of  the  Persians." 
Zoroaster's  improved  system  soon  became  popular,  na- 
tional, and  generally  universal  in  the  East.  Though  at 
first,  it  met  with  great  opposition  from  the  Sabians,  yet 
he  soon  drew  over  to  it  Darius,  whose  example  was 
soon  followed  by  the  "courtiers,  nobility,  and  all  the 
great  men  of  the  kingdom."  The  time  in  which  he 
flourished,  "  was  while  Darius  Hystaspes  was  king  of 
Persia."  The  sect  flourished  from  his  time,  which,  to 
"the  death  ofYazdejard,  the  last  Persian  king  of  the 
Magian  religion,  was  about  eleven  hundred  years.  But 
after  the  Mahometans  had  overrun  Persia,  in  the 
seventh  century  after  Christ,  the  Archimagus  was  forced 
to  remove  from  thence  into  Kerman,  which  is  a  province 
in  Persia,  lying  upon  the  Southern  Ocean,  towards 
India,  and  there  it  hath  continued  even  to  this  day." — 
But  lor  these  and  other  important  statements  I  must 
generally  refer  to  Prideaux's  account.  Make  Brun 
says  this  sect  exists  in  Africa,  and  that  in  Congo,  •'  the 
good  principle  is  named  Zamba  M'Poonga  ;  and  the 
evil  principle  which  is  opposed  to  him,  Caddee 
M'Peemba."  Geog.  B.  68  pp.  274,  328.  Impostor 
as  Zoroaster  was,  he  did  not  choose  to  make  '•  God  the 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  71 

author  of  evil."  To  avoid  this  absurdity  he  held  '^  that 
God  originally  and  directly  created  only  light  or  good, 
and  that  darkness  or  evil  followed  it  by  consequence, 
as  the  shadow  doth  the  person  :  that  light  or  good  had 
only  a  real  production  from  God,  and  the  other  after- 
wards resulted  from  it  as  the  defect  thereof."  But,  we 
shall  notice  some  of  the  articles  of  Zoroaster's  creed, 
more  immediately  connected  with  our  present  subject, 
and  compare  them  with  the  articles  found  in  Christian 
creeds  of  the  present  day. 

1st.  Zoroaster  taught,  that  under  the  supreme  God 
"  there  were  two  angels,  one  the  angel  of  light,  who 
is  the  author  and  director  of  all  good,  and  the  other 
the  angel  of  darkness,  who  is  the  author  and  director 
of  all  evil."  It  is  very  evident  that  his  "  angel  of 
darkness,"  answers  to  the  devil  of  Christians,  for  they 
believe  their  devil^to  be  the  author  and  director  of  all 
evil.  They  believe  he  was  its  author  at  first  in  de- 
ceiving Eve,  and  has  been  its  author  and  director  ever 
since.  Both  moral  and  physical  evil  are  ascribed  to 
him.  The  resemblance  between  them,  is  not  only 
evident  as  it  respects  the  powers  and  qualities  both 
are  said  to  possess,  but  the  very  name  given  to  them. 
It  is  well  known.  Christians  call  their  devil  "  the  an- 
gel of  darkness."  Between  Zoroaster's  "  angel  of 
darkness,"  and  the  devil  of  Christians,  I  can  perceive 
little  or  no  difference.  The  Magians  first  deified  the 
principle  of  evil,  then  Zoroaster  changed  this  god  into 
an  angel  of  darkness,  and  Christians  have  adopted  him 
for  their  devil ;  and  lest  his  origin  should  be  lost  in  the 
lapse  of  ages,  have  called  him  by  the  same  name. 
But  the  resemblance  is  further  manifest,  by  consider- 
ing, that  the  angel  of  light  and  the  anjjel  of  darkness 
"  are  in  a  perpetual  struggle  with  each  other ;  and  that 
where  the  angel  of  light   prevails,  there  the  most  is 


72  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

good,  and  where  the  angel  of  darkness  prevails,  there 
the  most  is  evil  ;  and  that  this  strugiijle  shall  continue 
to  the  end  of  the  world,"  I  ask  all  candid  Christians, 
if  this  is  not  what  they  believe  concerning  their  devil? 
Is  it  not  their  faith  and  their  phraseology,  that  God 
and  the  devil  are  in  a  perpetual  struggle  ?  That  this 
struggle  shall  continue  between  them  unto  the  end  of 
the  world,  and  that  God  finally  shall  overcome  the 
devil  ?  Who  can  deny  all  this  ?  And  what  Chris- 
tian man  can  have  the  face  to  deny  that  Christians 
have  made  a  devil  out  of  Zoroaster's  angel  of  dark- 
ness, for  it  was  impossible  he  could  make  his  angel  of 
darkness  out  of  their  devil.  It  is  also  apparent,  Chris- 
tians believe,  as  Zoroaster  has  taught  them,  "  that 
where  the  angel  of  light  or  the  good  God  prevails, 
there  the  most  is  good,  and  where  the  angel  of  dark- 
ness, or  their  devil  prevails,  there  the  most  is  evil." 
Prideaux  considers  it  a  great  absurdity  in  the  ancient 
Magian  religion,  that  "  light  and  darkness,  or  good 
and  evil,  were  the  supreme  beings,  without  acknow- 
ledging the  great  good  God,  who  is  superior  to  both." 
But  is  the  absurdity  much  less  among  Christians,  in 
holding  to  one  supreme  God,  and  a  devil,  whom  they 
make  but  little  inferior  to  him?  It  is  true,  they  have 
not  two  gods  in  name,  for  they  do  not  believe  in  the 
devil  as  a  a^od.  But  what  si<mifies  a  mere  name,  when 
in  fact  they  ascribe  to  him  all  the  characteristics  of  a 
God  ;  yea,  the  very  same  as  the  ancient  Magians  as- 
cribed to  their  evil  god,  and  Zoroaster  to  his  angel  of 
darkness.  Their  devil  struirsles  with  the  true  God, 
and  is  in  a  continual  struggle  with  him,  and  is  not  to 
give  it  up  until  the  end  of  the  world.  In  all  past 
ages,  they  say  that  their  devil  has  had  the  ascendancy 
in  this  struggle,  for  evil  hitherto  has  most  prevailed. 
See  Mr.  Emerson's  treatise  on  the  Milennium. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  73 

I  would  suggest  it  for  consideration,  whether  Zoro- 
aster's "angel  of  light,"  is  not  a  corruption  of  the 
Scripture  doctrine  concerning  the  Messiah.  He  is 
called  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  the  angel  of  the 
covenant.  Between  him  and  the  seed  of  the  serpent 
there  is  a  continual  struggle,  and  this  struggle  is  to  con- 
tinue to  the  end  of  the  world,  when  all  things  shall  be 
subdued  to  him.  But,  though  he  was  manifested  to 
destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  ;  yea,  through  death  to 
destroy  the  devil,  this  devil  was  not  a  '-fallen  angel," 
or  "  an  angel  of  darkness,'^  or  "  an  evil  god,"  as  we 
shall  see,  Section  vi.  Paul,  2  Cor.  xi.  14,  seems  to 
allude  to  this  tenet  of  Zoroaster's  creed,  in  saying, 
satan  is  transformed  into  "  an  angel  of  light.^^  It  is 
implied,  that  before  this  transformation  he  was  "  a?* 
angcl  of  darkness,^'  which  are  the  very  expressions  used 
by  Zoroaster.     See,  on  this  text,  Section  v. 

2d.  Let  us  now  consider,  what  Zoroaster  says  shall 
take  place  at  the  end  of  the  world,  and  compare  it  with 
the  creeds  of  most  Christians,  He  says—"  then  there 
shall  be  a  general  resurrection."  This  article  Zoroas- 
ter no  doubt  learned  from  his  acquaintance  with  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  for  the  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
was  the  ultimate  hope  of  believers  in  Christ,  who  was 
promised  to  the  fathers.  At  this  resurrection,  he  says 
there  shall  be  "  a  day  of  judgment."  This,  Zoroaster 
could  not  learn  from  the  Old  Testament,  for  it  does  not 
teach  such  a  doctrine,  and  when  he  made  his  creed^ 
the  New  was  not  in  existence.  The  phrase  "  day  of 
judgment,^^  used  by  him,  is  that  now  used  by  Christians, 
and  in  the  same  sense  as  he  used  it.  In  my  answer  to 
Mr.  Sabine,  I  examined  every  text  in  which  this  phrase 
is  found,  and  showed,  that  it  is  not  once  used  in  the 
Bible,  in  the  sense  which  Zoroaster  and  Christians  have 
attached  to  it.     To  it  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader, 


74  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

who  inclines  to  examine  this  subject.  Christians  must 
have  borrowed  the  sense  they  attach  to  the  phrase  "  day 
of  judgment"  from  his  creed,  for  he  could  not  borrow  it 
from  theirs,  as  the  chronology  of  the  cases  show.  But 
let  us  hear  Zoroaster,  about  what  shall  take  place  at 
the  day  of  judgment  ?  He  says — ''just  retribution  shall 
be  rendered  to  all  according  to  their  works."  It  can- 
not be  denied,  that  this  is  the  very  sentiment  and  lan- 
guage of  Christian  creeds.  But  I  ask,  how  Zoroaster 
could  learn  either  this  sentiment  or  its  phraseology  from 
the  Old  Testament?  If  he  did,inteHigent  and  learned 
orthodox  men  have  erred  greatly,  in  admitting  this  doc- 
trine is  not  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  Jahn,  in  his 
Archaelosy,  thus  writes,  p.  398.  "  We  have  not  au- 
thority, therefore,  decidedly  to  say,  that  any  other  mo- 
tives were  held  out  to  the  ancient  Hebrews  to  pursue 
the  good  and  avoid  the  evil,  than  those. which  were 
derived  from  the  rewards  and  punishments  of  tliis  life. 
That  these  were  the  motives  which  were  presented  to 
their  minds  in  order  to  influence  them  to  pursue  a  right 
course  of  conduct,  is  expressly  asserted,  Isai.  xxvi.  9, 
10,  and  may  be  learnt  also  from  the  imprecations,  which 
are  met  with,  in  many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament. — • 
The  Me  he  st  mil,  y\' ho  were  disciples  of  Zoioaster,  be- 
lieved in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  in  rewards  and 
punishments,  after  death,  and  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  ;  at  the  time  of  which  resurrection,  all  the  bad 
would  be  purged  by  fire,  and  associated  with  the  good. 
Zend.  Avesta,P.  I.  pp.  107,108;  P.  11.  pp.  2ll,~227, 
229;  124,  125;  173,  245,246;  Comp.  Ezek.xxxvii. 
1—14." 

According  to  this  writer,  "  the  ancient  Hebrews" 
were  not  taught  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments. But  he  honestly  tells  us  that  the  "  disciples 
of  Zoroaster  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soulj  in 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  75 

rewards  and  punishments  after  death."  It  is  true,  the 
Andover  translator  of  Jahn's  work,  in  the  paragraph 
preceding,  inserts  the  following  words  in  correction  of 
his  author.  ["  And  although  he  (Solomon)  no  where 
in  express  terms  holds  up  the  doctrine  of  future  re- 
wards and  punishments,  informs  us  in  chap.  xii.  14,  of 
something  very  much  like  it,  viz.  '  That  God  shall 
bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing, 
whether  good  or  evil.' '']  Such  is  the  proof  adduced 
in  opposition  to  Jahn,  of  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. Our  readers  can  judge  for  themselves  as  to  its 
conclusiveness.  It  leaves  one  serious  difficulty  unre- 
lieved. How  came  Zoroaster  and  his  disciples  to  speak 
so  explicitly  ahout  this  doctrine,  if  it  was  not  clearly 
revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  No  Christian  can 
speak  of  it  with  more  plainness  than  they  did,  if  Pri- 
deaux  and  Jahn  in  the  above  quotations  speak  truth 
concerning  them.  Christians  now,  use  their  very  lan- 
guage, in  expressing  their  ideas  on  the  subject.  With 
pleasure  we  acknowledge  our  obligations  to  Mr.  Up- 
ham,  for  his  translation  of  Jahn's  valuable  work,  and 
this  obligation  would  have  been  much  increased,  had 
he  referred  us  to  the  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  from 
which  Zoroaster  could  so  clearly  learn  his  doctrine 
concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  future  pun- 
ishment. Or,  if  he  could  not,  account  for  this  impos- 
tor's knowing  so  much  more  about  it  than  the  inspired 
writers.  Accordino;  to  Jahn's  account,  Zoroaster  dis- 
ciples  did  not  believe  in  endless  punishment.  At  "  the 
resurrection,  all  the  bad  would  be  purged  by  fire,  and 
associated  with  the  good"  was  their  belief,  and  this  ac- 
cords with  the  opinions  of  some  Christians  in  the  pre- 
sent day. 

But,  let  us  hear  Zoroaster,  about  what  is  to  succeed 
this    day  of  judgment   and   retribution.     He  says — 


76  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

"After  which  the  angel  of  darkness,  and  his  disciples, 
shall  go  into  a  world  of  their  own,  where  they  shall 
suffer  in  everlasting  darkness  the  punishment  of  their 
evil  deeds  ;  and  the  angel  of  light  and  his  disciples, 
shall  also  go  into  a  world  of  their  own,  where  they  shall 
receive  in  everlastini^  lisjht  the  reward  due  unto  their 
good  deeds;  and  that  after  this  they  shall  remain  sepa- 
rated forever;  and  light  and  darkness  be  no  more  mix- 
ed together  to  all  eternity."  We  have  seen  that  Zo- 
roaster's "  angel  of  darkness,"  and  "  the  devil"  of  Chris- 
tians, are  the  same  both  as  to  qualities  and  name. — 
Here  the  sameness  is  still  more  manifest,  for  what 
honest  man  can  deny,  that  Christians  have  adopted  his 
very  sentiments  and  language.  For  example,  Zoroas- 
ter's "angel  of  darkness"  had  disciples.  Well,  Chris- 
tians say  their  devil  has  disciples.  His  angel  of  dark- 
ness with  his  disciples,  after  the  day  of  judgment  shall 
go  into  a  world  of  their  own.  So  say  Christians  con- 
cerning their  devil  and  his  disciples.  His  angel  of 
darkness  with  his  disciples,  in  this  world  of  their  own, 
"shall  suffer  in  everlasting  darkness  the  punishment  of 
their  evil  deeds."  And  do  not  Christians  say  the  very 
same  of  their  devil  and  his  disciples  ?  Every  orthodox 
man  must  believe  that  the  devil  with  his  discij)les,  or 
all  wicked  men,  are  to  suffer  in  a  world  of  their  own 
"in  everlasting  darkness  the  punishment  of  their  evil 
deeds,"  and  that  "  the  angel  of  light,  and  his  disciples, 
shall  also  go  into  a  world  of  their  own.  where  they 
shall  receive  in  everlasting  light  the  reward  due  unto 
their  good  deeds  :  and  that  after  this  they  shall  remain 
separated  forever,  and  light  and  darkness  be  no  more 
mixed  together  to  all  eternity."  What  man  would  be 
deemed  orthodox,  who  refused  to  helieve  these  things  ? 
And  why  not  allow,  that  Zoroaster,  the  greatest  im- 
postor that  ever  arose,  Mahomet  excepted,  was  in  these 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  tl 

lliings  as  orthodox  as  they  are.  In  these  things  he  was 
orthodox  long  before  thetn.  There  is  only  one  of  the 
above  articles  about  which  they  differ  from  him  in 
opinion.  To  the  honor  of  our  orthodox  brethren  be  it 
spoken,  they  do  not  say,  that  the  disciples  of  the  angel 
of  light  receive  future  blessedness  as  a  reward  for  good 
deeds  done  by  them  here.  No,  they  say,  it  is  not  of 
works  but  of  grace,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  It  is 
true,  the  grace  whereby  they  save  men,  is  rather  a  pur- 
chased grace,  than  free  grace,  but  on  this  I  forbear  re- 
marking. 

But  it  is  added  by  Prideaux — ''  and  all  this  the  re- 
mainder of  that  sect  which  is  now  in  Persia  and  India, 
do  without  any  variation,  after  so  many  ages,  still  hold 
even  to  this  day."  If  they  hold  all  the  above  articles, 
"without  any  variation  to  this  day,"  and  if  they  are 
all  true,  as  Dean  Prideaux  asserts,  why  be  at  so  much 
trouble  and  expense  to  send  them  missionaries  ?  The 
chief  articles  in  modern  Christian  creeds  were  propa- 
gated there  many  ages  before  the  Christian  religion 
existed. 

It  deserves  the  serious  consideration  of  the  whole 
orthodox  body,  whether  missionaries  ought  not  to 
come  from  Persia  and  India  here,  to  correct  the  inno- 
vations and  additions  made  In  the  creed  of  the  great 
Zoroaster.  But  I  must  leave  this,  and  other  reflec- 
tions arising  from  the  above  statements  to  be  made 
by  the  reader. 

We  have  now  noticed  some  of  the  principal  arti- 
cles of  Zoroaster's  creed,  and  would  ask  Christians — 
Bretlu'en,  from  what  divine  source  did  this  arch  impos- 
tor learn  all  these  articles  of  his  creed? — 1st.  Was  it 
from  the  Old  Testament  scripture  ?  This  you  will 
not  affirm,  for  intelligent  orthodox  men  allow  it  does 
not  contain  such  articles.  If  it  does  contain  them, 
6 


78  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

you  can  find  them  there  as  well  as  Zoroaster,  and  we 
call  on  you  to  prove  them  from  this  book.  2d.  Did 
Zoroaster  learn  such  articles  from  llie  New  Testa- 
ment? This  was  impossible,  for  it  was  not  in  exist- 
ence for  more  than  six  hundred  years  after  the  days  of 
Zoroaster.  3d.  Did  Zoroaster  learn  them  from  God, 
when  he  pretended  God  spoke  to  him  out  of  the  midst 
of  the  fire?  This  cannot  be  affirmed  unless  you  ad- 
mit iiim  to  be  a  true  prophet  of  the  Lord.  But  he  is 
declared  the  greatest  impostor  which  ever  arose,  Ma- 
homet excepted.  4th.  Did  Zoroaster  invent  these  arti- 
cles of  ills  creed  1  No  other  alternative  is  left,  but  to 
admit  this,  or  prove  that  he  derived  them  from  the  Old 
Testament,  or  by  special  revelation  from  God.  If  he 
invented  them,  then  he  was  the  author  of  the  princi- 
pal articles  in  modern  creeds.  5th.  Do  you  say,  your 
articles,  so  similar  to  his  creed,  were  neither  derived 
from,  him,  nor  from  the  old  Testanient,  but  entirely 
from  the  New  ?  This  will  not  do,  for  even  allowing 
such  articles  to  be  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  is  evident  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  had 
not  the  honor  of  first  revealing  them  to  the  world. 
Zoroaster,  the  arch  impostor,  had  published  them  all 
over  the  East,  six  hundred  years  before  Christ  appear- 
ed. If  such  articles  are  found  in  the  New  Testament, 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  indebted  to  this 
impostor  for  inventing  them.  Siiould  you  say,  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles  derived  these  articles  from  God 
by  immediate  revelation,  permit  me  to  ask  you,  who 
revealed  them  to  Zoroaster  six  hundred  years  before 
the  Christian  era  ?  Did  God  reveal  them  to  him  ? 
If  he  did,  why  not  allow  him  to  have  been  a  true  pro- 
phet of  the  Lord  ?  And  why  not  frankly  own,  that 
Jjesus  Christ  and  iiis  apostles  did  not  first  reveal  such 
articles  o/  faith,  but    that    God   first   revealed    them 


ri 


AN    IN(iUIRY— PART    I,  79 

through  his  great  prophet  Zoroaster?  Perhaps  you 
may  say,  such  articles  were  communicated  by  inspira- 
tion to  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  it  is  on  their  au- 
thority that  you  beheve  them.  Beware,  I  beseech 
you,  of  taking  tiiis  ground,  for  this  is  saying,  Zoroas- 
ter, a  notorious  impostor,  inv^ented  articles  of  faith, 
which,  six  hundred  years  after  their  invention,  God 
sanctioned  as  divine  revelation.  Was  God  indebted 
to  an  impostor  for  suggesting  to  him  a  religious  creed 
suited  to  the  Christian  dispensation  ?  For  the  honor 
of  God,  of  Christj  and  his  apostles,  yea,  for  the  honor 
of  Christianity,  we  hope  you  will  not  assert  this.  If 
Zoroaster  learnt  such  articles  of  his  creed  from  a  di- 
vine source,  it  must  have  been  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  few  will  be  found  who  will  assert  that  it 
contains  them,  for  this  ground  is  abandoned  by  ortho- 
dox intelligent  men,  and  their  defence  is  drawn  from 
the  New  Testtmnent.  But  if  their  defence  can  be 
made  from  the  Old,  we  request  the  different  articles 
be  distinctly  taken  up  and  proved  from  it.  Dan.  xii. 
2,  is  the  most  plausible  text  which  can  be  adduced, 
from  which  he  could  learn  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment.  This  passage  will  be  fully  considered  in 
the  Second  Part,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader.  As  to 
satan  being  a  fallen  angel,  who  deceived  Eve,  tormen* 
ted  Job,  and  has  become  the  Christian's  devil,  we 
leave  all  to  form  their  own  opinion  from  the  evidence 
which  has  been  adduced. 

Let  it  now  be  remembered,  that  while  the  Jews 
dwelt  in  Canaan  they  knew  nothing  about  the  devil. 
If  they  did,  it  was  merely  by  report,  that  the  Per-, 
sians  and  other  nations  believed  in  such  a  being. 
They  had  precepts,  guarding  them  against  witchcraft, 
idolatry,  and  all  the  abominations  of  the  Canaanites, 
but  not  pne  guarding  them  against  that  almost  infjait^ 


80  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

being  whom  Christians  call  the  devil.  How  our  or- 
thodox brethren  account  for  this,  I  am  unable  to  say. 
On  my  views,  it  is  easily  and  rationally  accounted  for. 
The  devil  was  the  principle  of  evil  deified,  transform- 
ed by  Zoroaster  into  an  angel  of  darkness,  and  the 
Jews  must  go  to  Babylon  to  get  acquainted  with  him. 
That  the  Jews  spent  seventy  years  in  captivity  there, 
is  a   fact   disputed    by  no  one.     The  question  which 

then    comes   forward   for  consideration    is Did  the 

Jews  imbibe,  during  their  captivity,  and  did  they 
bring  back  from  it  any  religious  opinions  which  were 
not  taught  in  their  sacred  books  ?  fVere  any  of  those 
opinions  derived  from  the  creed  of  Zoroaster,  and  was 
that  now  entertained  concerning  the  devil  of  this  num- 
ber] To  see  how  this  matter  stands,  we  solicit  the 
reader's  attention  to  the  following  particulars, 

1st.  The  Magian  religion  for  many  ages  had  been 
the  "  national  religion  of  the  Medes  as  well  as  of  the 
Persians,"  as  stated  by  Prideaux.  About  the  time  the 
Jews  were  in  captivity  in  Babylon,  Zoroasier  flourish- 
ed there,  in  reviving  and  improving  it.  Jahn,p.  391, 
thus  writes  respecting  the  time  when  the  Jews  were 
carried  there.  "  When  at  length  admonitions  ceased 
to  be  of  any  great  avail,  and  every  thing  was  growing 
worse  and  worse,  the  Israelitish  commonwealth  was 
overthrown,  two  hundred  and  fifty-three  years  after 
their  separation  from  Judah,  and  seven  hundred  and 
twenty-two  before  Christ.  The  people  were  carried 
away  by  the  Assyrians  into  Gozan,  Chalacene,  the 
cities  of  Media,  and  into  Assyria.  The  kingdom  of 
Judah  was  overthrown  three  hundred  and  eighty- 
seven  years  after  the  separation,  five  hundred  and 
eighty-eight  before  Christ,  by  the  Chaldeans,  and  the 
people  were  carried  captive  to  the  banks  of  the  river 
Chebar,  in  Babylonia."     Prideaux  says,  vol.  i.  p.  65, 


AN     INQUIRY PART    I.  81 

that  the  Jews  were  carried  to  Babylon  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  which,  according  to  his  chro- 
nology, was  six  hundred  and  six  years  before  Christ, 
It  was  not  for  want  of  a  fair  opportunity,  if  the 
Jews  did  not  imbibe  opinions  not  found  in  their  scrip- 
tures. 

2d.  When  they  were  carried  to  Babylon  no  particu- 
lar place  was  appointed  for  them,  but  they  appear  to 
have  been  dispersed  tlu'oughout  the  provinces  of  that 
vast  empire.  It  was  not  with  the  Jews  here,  as  with 
their  forefather's  in  Egypt,  a  particular  spot  being  as- 
signed them,  where  they  lived  all  together,  and  could 
fortify  each  other  against  a  departure  from  the  religion 
of  Jehovah.  Their  dispersed  condition  rendered  them 
liable  to  forget  their  own  religion,  and  insensibly  im- 
bibe the  opinions  of  those  among  whom  they  lived. 

3d.  The  very  religion  of  Zoroaster  had  many  things 
about  it  calculated  to  lead  Jews  to  embrace  it.  It  re- 
cognized the  first  principle  of  their  own,  the  suprema- 
cy of  one  God  ;  was  the  religion  of  ilje  king,  his  court, 
and  of  all  the  nobility.  It  was  popular  throughout  the 
whole  empire.  These,  and  other  things  noticed  by 
Prideaux,  which  I  forbear  particularizing,  all  concur- 
red to  make  the  religion  of  Zoroaster  very  fascinating 
to  the  Jews.  For  them  to  oppose  it  was  only  to  ren- 
der themselves  as  odious  there,  as  I  am  likely  to  be 
among  orthodox  people  here,  in  opposing  their  doc- 
trine concerning  the  devil.  Jahn,  in  his  Archaeology, 
thus  writes,  pp.  393 — 4 :  •'  The  similitude,  which  ex- 
isted between  the  system  of  Moses,  and  that  of  Zoro- 
aster, which  prevailed  in  Persia  and  Media,  may  be 
summed  up  in  a  single  article,  viz.,  that  they  both  dis- 
countenanced the  worship  of  idols.  For,  1.  That 
original  beginning  of  all  things,  called  Hazaruam,  was 
neither  the  creator  nor  governor  of  the  world,  but  the 


82  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I. 

endless  succession  of  time,  which  was  represented  by 
Zoroaster,  as  the  supreme  existence,  ens,  or  fountain 
of  being.  From  Hazaruam,  proceeded  Ormuz  and 
Ahrimanes.  Ormoz  acted  the  part  of  creator  of  the 
world;  a  circumstance  which  caused  no  little  envy  in 
the  mind  of  Ahrimanes,  and  induced  him  to  mingle 
with  the  workmanship  of  Ormuz,  the  seeds  or  princi- 
ples of  evil,  which  exist.  By  tlie  Mehestani,  more- 
over, or  followers  of  Zoroaster,  not  only  Ormuz,  but 
six  Amschaspandi,  also  innumerable  spirits,  dispersed 
every  where,  the  sun,  moon,  stars,  and  other  earthly 
existences,  were  worshipped  without  distinction.  2. 
If  the  example  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  who  wor- 
shipped Ormuz  as  tiie  creator  and  governor  of  the 
world,  confirmed  the  Hebrews  in  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah, it  was  equally  likely,  on  the  other  hand,  to  in- 
duce them  to  adore  the  stars,  and  spirits,  which  occu- 
pied so  cons])icuous  a  place  in  the  system  of  those  na- 
tions ;  also  the  horses  and  chariots  of  the  sun,  which 
the  ancestors  of  King  Josiah,  influenced  by  the  ex- 
ample q{  the  Mehestani,  had  introduced  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  perhaps,  to  practise  that  species  of  Magian 
worship,  witnessed  by  Ezekiel  in  the  temple  of  Jeru- 
salem." 

4th.  The  Jews  previous  to  the  captivity,  had  been 
preparing  themselves  in  the  school  of  superstition  and 
wickedness,  for  embracing  such  opinions  at  Babylon. 
Jahn  says,  p.  39'2,  "  During  the  period  immediately 
preceding  their  overthrow,  every  kind  of  superstition, 
and  every  njoral  pollution  prevailed  in  both  kingdoms, 
especially  in  that  of  Judah.  No  other  means  tliere- 
fore  remained  to  correct  their  vices,  but  that  of  ex- 
treme severity,  by  which  their  whole  nation,  dis[)ersed 
from  their  country  into  distant  regions,  and  humbled 
and   afflicted,   might   learn   that    they    could    do   r.o- 


AN    IN(iUIRY PART    I.  SJI 

thing  without  God,  and  that  idols  could  lend  them  no 
assistance." 

otli.  The  long  duration  of  their  captivity,  unavoid- 
ably led  to  the  adoption  of  such  opinions  in  religion. 
It  was  known  by  the  Jews,  that  their  captivity  was  to 
be  for  seventy  years,  and  were  desired  to  make  their 
temporal  arrangements  accordingly.  See  the  prO'- 
phets'  injunctions  about  this.  But  let  us  suppose, 
what  is  hardly  supposable,  that  all  the  persons  who 
went  to  Babylon  over  twenty  years  of  age,  were  proof 
against  imbibing  any  false  opinion.  SutFer  me  to  ask, 
how  were  all  under  that  age,  and  all  born  there  to  be 
preserved  ?  Without  a  constant  miracle  they  could 
not,  and  no  one  affirms  that  a  miracle  was  wrought  to 
preserve  them..  It  is  then  morally  certain,  that  the 
Jews  on  their  return,  must  bring  back  with  them  many 
of  the  religious  opinions  of  the  people  among  whom 
they  had  lived  :  unless  we  can  prove,  that  they 
changed  all  their  religious  opinions,  as  easily  as  a  man 
can  shift  his  clothing, 

6th.  Prideaux  shows  from  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, that  some  of  the  Jews  had  gone  over  to  the  Ma- 
gian  religion.  He  refers  to  Ezek.  viii.  16,  where  the 
prophet,  being  carried  in  vision  to  Jerusalem,  saw 
"about  five  and  twenty  men  standing  between  the 
porch  and  the  altar,  with  their  backs  towards  the  tem- 
ple of  the  Lord,  and  their  faces  towards  the  east ;  and 
ihey  worshipped  the  sun.  The  meaning  of  which  is, 
that  they  had  turned  their  backs  upon  the  true  worship 
of  God,  and  had  gone  over  to  that  of  the  Magians." 
Here  then  is  direct  proof  of  the  fact  from  Scripture, 
that  Zoroaster's  religion  was  not  only  imbibed,  but 
the  worship  it  enjoined  practised  by  the  Jews.  But 
as  very  little  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  after 
the  captivity,  we  observe, 


84  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

7th.  That  learned  men  agree  that  the  Jews  brought 
back  from  their  captivity  religions  opinions,  not  taught 
in  their  Scriptures.  I  shall  only  quote  the  following 
writers  in  proof.  Michael  is,  on  the  Laws  of  Moses, 
vol.  ii.  p.  348,  thus  writes:  "In  the  New  Testament, 
indeed,  and  in  the  Jewish  language  after  the  period  of 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  from  which  the  Israelites  re- 
turned much  enriched  in  names  for  the  devil,  Belial 
means  the  devil.  But  in  the  Old  Testament  it  never 
has  this  meaning."  Again  ;  L'Enfant,  in  his  Intro- 
duction to  the  Reading  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  14,  thus 
writes:  "But  this  much  is  certain,  that  from  that  time 
(of  Alexander  the  Great)  the  Jews  began  to  Hdenize  ; 
that  the  Greek  tongue,  spoken  by  the  Macedonians, 
became  more  common  among  them,  and  that  they 
also  introduced  some  of  the  opinions  of  the  Greek 
philosophers,  as  the  transmigration  of  souls,  for  in- 
stance. We  find  some  steps  of  this  notion  even  in 
the  New  Testament,  as  in  Luke  xvi.  23,  where  there 
is  an  account  of  the  abode  of  departed  souls,  con- 
formable to  the  Grecian  philosophy,  and  in  John  ix.  2, 
where  we  find  an  allusion  to  the  prc-cxistence  and 
transmigration  of  souls.  It  is,  moreover,  evident 
from  the  Apochryphal  writings,  from  Philo,  Jose- 
phus,  and  the  Talmudists,  that  the  Jews,  especially 
the  Pharisees,  had  learned  and  followed  the  Grecian 
philosophy  ever  since  their  conveising  with  the  Greeks 
under  Alexander  the  Great,  the  Ptolemies,  and  Seleu- 
cidae,  his  successors,  who  reigned  in  Egypt  and  Syria/' 
Those  w4io  wish  to  see  more  authority  ir  proof  of  this 
point  may  consult  Dr.  Campbell's  Sixth  Dissertation, 
part  i.  sect.  19,  quoted  in  my  First  Inquiry,  chap.  i. 
sect,  3,  See  also  Jahn's  Archae.,  pp.  235,  396.  The 
Jews  then  had  two  sources  from  which  they  derived 
opinions  in   religion  not   taught  in   their  Scriptures  ; 


AN     INQUIRY PART    1.  85 

the  opinions  of  Zoroaster,  and  those  of  the  Greek 
philosophers. 

8th.  What  conclusively  proves  that  the  Jews 
brought  hack  from  their  captivity  many  opinions  not 
learned  from  their  sacred  books,  are  the  Apocryphal 
writings.  The  books  called  Apocrypha,  though  not 
canonical,  are  allowed  to  be  the  best  writings  extant, 
relative  to  the  Jews  after  the  captivity.  To  these  I 
shall  now  call  the  attention  of  the  reader,  collecting 
from  them,  what  were  the  religious  opinions  of  the 
Jews  in  the  times  to  which  they  relate.  Let  us  con- 
sider 

1st.  What  were  their  opinions  respecting  evilheings 
or  spirits  1  We  shall  be^in  with  iheir  use  of  tlie  term 
satan.  It  occurs  only  in  Eccles.  xxi.  27.  It  is  doubt- 
ful what  idea  the  writer  attached  to  this  word.  The 
word  diabolos  occurs  frequently  in  the  original,  but  is 
rendered  slanderer,  accusation,  &c.  in  the  English  ver- 
sion. See  Eccles.  xix.  15,  xxvi.  5,  xxviii.  9,  xxxviii. 
19,  and  li.  2,  1  Mac.  i.  36,  2  Mac.  xiv.  27.  The  only 
place  where  it  is  rendered  devil,  and  which  has  a  con- 
nexion with  our  present  subject,  is  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, ii.  24.  '' Nevertheless,  through  envy  of  the  devil 
came  death  into  the  world  ;  and  they  that  do  hold  of 
his  side  do  find  it."  The  allusion  here  is  to  Genesis 
iii.  and  from  this  passage  Christians  have  probably  de- 
rived the  idea  that  it  was  the  devil  that  deceived  Eve. 
If  they  can  show  a  better  source  for  this  opinion,  we 
hope  it  will  be  done.  Paul  says,  death  entered  by  sin, 
Rom.  V.  12,  and  it  was  shown.  Sec.  ii,  that  no  Old 
Testament  writer  intimates  that  death  entered  by  the 
devil.  Where  then  did  the  Apocryphal  writers  get  this 
opinion  ?  It  must  have  been  from  the  heathen,  and  it 
is  evident  this  idea  agrees  to  Zoroaster's  angel  of  dark- 
ness, who  was  the  author  and  director  of  all  evil,  death 


86  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

not  excepted.  In  the  Apocrypha  evil  spirits  are  fre- 
quently mentioned.  What  child  has  not  been  amused 
with  the  account  of  ''  Asmodeus,  the  evil  spirit"'  killing 
Sara's  seven  husbands?  Also,  of  Raphael  curing  To- 
bit's  eyes,  and  binding  Asmodeus.  And  of  the  won- 
derful efficacy  of  the  heart,  liver  and  gall  of  a  fish, 
whicl]  leaped  out  of  the  Tigiis,  the  smoke  of  which 
smelled  by  the  evil  spirit,  he  fled  into  the  utmost  parts 
of  Egypt,  where  the  angel  bound  him.  See  Tobit, 
chaps,  iii.  vi.  iiii.  xi.  In  Baruch  iv.  7,  35,  we  read  of 
devils,  but  the  original  word  is  not  diabolos  but  diamo- 
nion.  But  as  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  \itmons, 
and  the  being  Chiistians  call  the  devil^  are  very  differ- 
ent, it  requires  no  attention  from  me  in  the  present  in- 
vestigation. 1  would  only  remark  in  passim:,  that  peo- 
ple's notions  about  satan,  the  devil,  evil  spirits,  witches 
and  wizzards,  must  be  from  a  heathen  source,  for  none 
of  them  are  admitted  to  be  real  beings  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. On  the  contrary  they  are  there  condemned 
as  superstitions,  and  the  Jews  commanded  to  give  no 
heed  to  them.  Where  then  could  the  Jews  learn  such 
opinions  but  from  their  intercourse  with  the  heathen  ? 
If  the  Jews  imbibed  the  idea  of  witches  in  Canaan,  and 
that  of  the  devil  and  evil  spirits  at  Babylon,  and  such 
beings  are  mentioned  in  the  Apocrypha,  are  these  suffi- 
cient reasons  for  our  believing  their  existence?  And  is 
it  possible  that  such  beings  can  be  recognized  as  real 
in  the  New  Testament? 

2d.  Wliat  are  the  opinions  taught  in  the  Apocrypha 
about  Hell]  The  Greek  word  Hades,  rendered  hell, 
occurs,  Eccles.  xxi.  10,  and  li.5,  6.  Songof  the  three 
children,  verse  66.  Tobit  xiii.  2,  2  Esd.  iv.  8,  viii. 
53,  and  ii.  29.  It  is  the  same  word  which  is  frequent- 
ly rendered  hell  in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  synony- 
mous with  Sheol,  also  rendered  hell  in  the  Old.     The 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  87 

word  Gehenna,  also  rendered  hell  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, does  not  occur  in  any  of  the  books  of  the  Aj30c- 
rypha.  By  hell,  in  all  the  above  texts,  is  meant  the 
same  as  Sheol,  the  grave,  or  state  of  the  dead.  The 
idea  ofa  place  of  endless  punishment,  does  not  appear 
to  be  meant  in  any  one  of  them.  Indeed  such  a  place 
of  punishment  could  not  be  learned  by  the  Jews,  either 
from  the  ancient  Marian  religion  or  from  Zoroaster's 
improvements  of  it,  for  not  a  word  is  said  about  hell  in 
either.  I  have  shown,  in  my  first  Inquiry,  that  Hades 
or  hel!  as  a  place  of  futui'e  punishment  was  learned  by 
the  Jews  from  their  intercourse  with  the  Greeks.  See 
chap,  i,  sec.  3. 

3d.  What  were  the  opinions  of  the  Apocryphal  wri- 
ters, concf.rning  the  number  that  should  be  saved  l-^-' 
Their  opinion  was,  that  all  men  "shall  not  be  saved." 
See  2  Esdras  viii.  38 — 42.  On  the  contrary,  the  Most 
High  "  made  this  \vorld  for  many,  but  the  world  to 
come  for  few.  See  2  Esd.  viii.  I.  And  in  verse  3  it 
is  said — "there  be  many  created,  but  few  shall  be  sa- 
ved." And  chap.  ix.  15,  "  there  be  many  more  of 
ihem  which  perish,  than  of  them  which  shall  be  saved." 
No  sentiment  like  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  Magian 
creed,  or  in  its  impi'ovements  by  Zoroaster,  so  far  as 
my  knowledge  of  them  extends.  Where  the  Apocry- 
phal writers  learned  it  I  am  unable  to  say  with  cer- 
tainty ;  but  Whitby  on  Rom.  ii.  shows  tliat  the  Jews 
in  our  Lord's  day,  believed  that  none  but  Jews  were  to 
be  saved,  and  they  were  all  to  be  saved.  They  be- 
lieved that  all  the  Gentiles  were  fuel  for  hell  fiie.  My 
opinion  is,  that  this  idea  originated  among  the  Jews, 
from  their  hatred  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  high  opinion 
which  they  entertained  of  themselves  as  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  See  Matih.  ch.  iii.  No  one  we  think  will 
contend,  that  they  learned  such  an  opinion  from  their 


88  AN    INQUIRY PART    1. 

Scriptures.  Christians  in  time  past,  have  not  only  be- 
lieved t[)at  few  will  be  sav^ed,  but  they  express  them- 
selves pretty  much  in  the  language  of  the  Apocryphal 
writers  on  the  subject.  Of  late,  Dr.  Woods,  Mr.  Em- 
erson, and  some  other  orthodox  writers  aver,  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  human  race  will  be  saved.  The 
number,  who  shall  suffer  eternal  punishment,  will  not 
be  more  in  proportion  to  the  whole  human  race,  than 
those  who  sufter  capital  punishment  in  any  country,  are 
to  that  of  the  whole  community.  We  ought  not  to  de- 
spise the  day  of  small  things.  But  this  is  a  great  thing, 
for  not  long  ago,  it  was  the  orthodox  faith,  that  com- 
paratively few  of  the  human  race  would  be  saved. 

4th.  What  were  the  opinions  of  the  Apocryphal  wri- 
ters concernins^  immediate  punishment  after  death  1 — 
That  they  believed  the  wicked  were  punished  after 
death  is  evident  from  2  Esdras,  vii.  47.  And  that  it 
commenced  immediately  ^hav  (\e-A{\\  seems  also  evident 
from  verse  56,  and  ix.  12.  Compare  also  Eccles.  xviii. 
22 — 25.  Tliis  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of  immediate 
punishment  after  death  taught  in  our  day.  But  I  would 
ask,  from  what  source  did  the  Apocryphal  writers  learn 
this  doctrine?  Not  from  the  Old  Testament,  for  it  is 
now  conceded  by  intelligent  orthodox  nien,  tliat  the 
Old  Testament  does  not  teach  it.  It  was  impossible 
they  could  learn  it  from  the  New,  for  when  they  wrote, 
it  was  not  in  existence.  Not  from  Zoroaster,  for  1  do 
not  find  that  his  creed  contained  the  doctrine  of  im- 
mediate punishment  after  death.  Where  could  the 
Jews  then  learn  such  a  doctrine  ?  I  answer,  from  the 
Greeks,  from  whom  also  they  learned  that  Hades  or 
Hell  was  the  place  where  tliis  punishment  was  to  be 
suffered.  See  first  Inquiry,  chap,  i,  sect.  3.  The  Old 
Testament  writers,  so  far  from  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
immediate  punishment  after  death,  describe  this  state, 


4 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  89 

as  a  state  of  darkness,  silence,  insensibility,  and  that 
there  the  very  best  of  men  cannot  praise  God  or  give 
him  thanks.  Nor  is  a  sin;ale  individual  ever  represented 
as  in  pain  or  misery  in  this  state.  But  the  Greeks  be- 
lieved in  immediate  happiness  as  well  as  misery  after 
death,  and  the  Apocryphal  writers  believed  both.  See 
Eccles.  i.  13,  2  Esdras,  xiv.  34,  and  vii.  28,  35,  2 
Mac.  vii.  14,  Wisdom  of  Sol.  chap.  ii.  See  Jahn's 
Arch.  p.  398,  quoted  above. 

5th.  What  were  tlie  opinions  entertained  by  the  wri- 
ters of  the  Apocrypha  concerning  "  the  day  of  judg- 
ment V  The  phrase,  "the  day  of  judgment,"  only 
occurs  once  in  the  Old  Testament,  Prov.  vi.  34,  where 
no  one  ever  supposed  it  referred  to  a  day  of  general 
judgment  at  the  end  of  this  world.  But  in  this  sense, 
the  phrase,  "the  day  of  judgment,"  is  used  by  Zoroas- 
ter in  his  creed.  And  in  tliis  sense  also  it  is  used  by 
the  Apocryphal  writers  ;  2  Esdras,  xii.  34  ;  Esther,  i. 
11.  That  they  meant  a  day  of  judgment  after  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead  seems  evident  from  the  following 
passages.  The  torment  oi  the  wicked  at  this  period 
they  believed  to  be  "  fire  and  worms  in  their  flesh  ;  and 
they  shall  feel  them,  and  weep  forever."  See  Judith, 
xvi.  17,  Eccles.  vii.  17,  Comp.  2  Esdras,  ii.  34,  and 
vi.  9,  25.  Suffer  me  now  to  ask,  where  could  the  wri- 
ters of  the  Apocrypha  learn  the  doctrine  of  "  the  day 
of  judgment"  but  from  the  creed  of  Zoroaster,  for  this 
is  both  the  sentiment  and  the  very  phraseology  which 
he  uses  as  has  been  seen  above  from  Prideaux.  It  can- 
not be  questioned,  that  the  phrase  "  the  day  of  judg- 
ment" does  not  once  occur  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
this  sense.  If  it  is  denied,  that  they  learned  this  sen- 
tinflent  from  the  creed  of  Zoroaster,  show  us  from  what 
Divine  source  they  could  learn  it?  As  Christians  could 
not  learn  either  this  sentiment  or  the  language  in  which 


90  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I. 

it  is  expressed  from  the  Old  Testament,  we  ask  how 
came  they  by  such  sentiments  and  language,  unless 
they  derived  it  from  Zoroaster's  creed  or  at  second 
hand  frotn  the  Apocrypha.  It  will  not  answer  to  say, 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  used  the  phrase  "  the  day 
of  judgment,"  and  Christians  have  borrowed  the  lan- 
guage and  sentiment  from  them.  No,  this  will  never 
do,  for  first,  we  have  shown  in  our  answer  to  Mr.  Sa- 
bine, that  in  no  text  where  this  language  is  used  is  such 
a  sentiment  conveyed  by  it.  But  second,  if  we  were 
even  to  grant  this,  what  would  follow  from  it.  It  would 
follow,  that  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  adopted  the 
sentiments  and  language  of  the  Apocryphal  writers,  or 
to  speak  all  the  truth,  that  both  were  indebted  to  the 
great  impostor,  Zoroaster,  for  inventing  both  the  senti- 
ment and  language  for  them  some  hundred  years  be- 
fore. Yea,  that  all  of  them  were  indebted  to  the  an- 
cient creed  of  the  Magians  for  this  doctrine  and  the 
language  in  which  it  is  expressed,  for  both  are  found 
there.  Let  our  brethren,  then,  who  contend  for  this 
doctrine,  consider  its  origin  ;  for  to  build  their  faith  on 
the  New  Testament  as  its  source,  is  worse  than  the 
Old  ;  it  makes  the  writers  not  revealers  of  a  new  doc- 
trine, nor  teaching  one  before  revealed,  but  adopting  a 
sentiment  and  lan^uasre,  which  oriijinated  in  the  INIao-iaD 
creed,  was  transmitted  by  the  great  impostor  Zoroaster, 
and  the  Apocryphal  writers  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  from  them  to  all  Christians  ever  since. 

6th.  What  are  the  opinions  taught  by  the  Apocry- 
phal writers,  respecting  the  duration  of  future  punish- 
ment 1  Their  opinion  about  this  was,  that  it  should 
never  end  Thus  in  Judith,  xvi.  17,  where,  speaking 
of  the  wicked  it  is  said — "  The  Lord  Almighty  will 
take  vengeance  of  them  in  the  day  of  judgment,  in 
putting  fire  and  worms  in  their  flesh  ;  and  they  shall 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  91 

feel  them  and  weep  forever."  Bad  as  the  ancient  Ma- 
gian  reliiijion  was,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  t^aught  the 
endless  duration  of  punishment.  And,  if  Jalmis  to  be 
believed,  as  quoted  above,  Zoroaster's  disciples  taught 
that  the  wicked  were  to  he  purified  by  fire  at  tlie  day 
of  judgment,  and  made  happy  with  the  good.  It  is 
certain  the  ancient  Greeks  believed  in  endless  punish- 
ment, and  from  this  source,  or  the  creed  of  Zoroaster, 
the  Apocryphal  writers  must  have  derived  it.  They 
could  not  learn  such  a  doctrine  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment scriptures,  for  it  is  not  taught  there.  Many  con- 
tend that  it  is  taught  in  the  New  Testament.  Allow- 
ing'it  is,  I  ask  how  the  writers  of  the  Apocrypha  came 
to  believe  it  and  teach  it  long  before  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written  ?  Did  the  New  Testament  writers 
adopt  a  doctrine,  tau^du  by  Apocryphal  writers,  which 
they  derived  from  the  heathen  ?  This  to  be  sure  would 
be  doing  great  honor  to  them,   but  what  comes  of  the 

OB  - 

honoi',  or  credit  of  Christ  and  bis  apostles  if  this  was 
admitted  ? 

Such  are  the  religious  opinions  found  in  the  Apoc- 
rypha, all  closely  connected  with  our  present  inquiry. 
We  would  candidly  ask  our  orthodox  brethren,  how 
those  writers  came  to  speak  so  clearly  and  explicitly 
on  these  topics,  long  before  the  New  Testament  was 
written  ?  As  their  information  could  not  be  derived 
from  the  Old  Testament,  where  did  they  obtain  it  ? — ^ 
Did  Daniel  reveal  it  to  the  Jews  while  they  were  in 
Babylon  ?  If  he  did,  why  was  it  mixed  up  with  such 
fables  as  are  found  in  the  Apocrypha,  and  transmitted 
to  posterity  by  Apocryphal  writers?  And,  if  such 
opinions  be  true,  why  did  the  New  Testament  writers 
not  avail  themselves  of  such  explicit  information,  and 
teach  them  to  the  world  ?  No  man,  we  think,  will 
affirm  that  such  opinions  are  taught  so  explicitly  in  the 


92 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 


New  Testament  as  they  are  in  the  Apocryplia.  And 
Christians  cannot  well  deny,  that  the  sentiments  and 
even  the  languai^e  of  their  creeds,  bear  a  ijreater  resem- 
blance to  what  is  found  in  the  Apocrypha,  than  any 
thing  taught  either  in  the  Old  or  JNew  Testament. — 
Many  doubt  the  truth  of  such  articles.  But  could  any 
man  have  disputed  their  truth,  had  the  Apocrypha  been 
a  part  of  divine  revelation  ? 

7th.  What  were  the  religious  opinions  among:  the 
Jews  not  found  in  Scripture,  during  the  days  of  Christ 
and  bis  apostles?  The  New  Testament  itself  affords 
evidence  that  opinions  prevailed  not  found  in  their 
Scriptures.  For  example,  our  Lord  told  the  Jews,  in 
general  terms,  that  they  had  made  God's  law  void, 
through  their  traditions.  See  some  of  these  opinions 
noticed  in  the  quotations  from  L'Enfant,  Jahn  and 
others,  above.  Other  opinions  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  notice  in  succeeding  Sections.  See  also  Whitby 
on  Romans  ii,  referred  to  above.  The  opinions  of 
Josephus  concerning  a  state  of  future  rewards  and 
punishments  are  well  known,  and  need  not  be  quoted. 
Those  who  wish  to  see  a  pretty  full  account  of  the 
opinions  of  the  Sadducees,  Pharisees,  and  other  sects 
among  the  Jews,  may  consult  Prideaux,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
353—389.  See  also  Jahn's  Arch.  pp.  402—404, 
411,  which  my  limits  forbid  quoting.  Nor  is  it  neces- 
sary, for  it  would  only  be  to  repeat  opinions  already 
noticed. 

8th.  The  history  of  the  Christian  church  shows, 
that  many  heathen  opinions  were  incorporated  with 
Christianity,  and  increased  from  bad  to  worse,  until 
what  was  called  Christianity,  became  worse  than  hea- 
thenism itself.  The  first  converts  were  Jews,  and 
vast  multitudes  of  converts  were  also  made  from 
among  the  Gentiles*     Such  continued  to  retain  many 


AN    INQ.UIRY PART    I.  93 

of  their  former  false  opinions.  When  Christianity  be- 
came the  rehfflon  of  the  Roman  empire,  men,  former- 
ly heathen  priests  and  philosophers,  became  teachers 
in  the  Christian  church,  so  that  it  soon  became  popu- 
lar, but  greatly  corrupted.  Those  who  wish  to.  see 
this  jjradual  corruption  traced  and  exposed,  may  con- 
sult Dr.  Campbell's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Mosheim's 
Church  History,  Milner's,  and  others.  The  fact  is  no- 
torious, and  universally  admitted,  and  my  limits  forbid 
a  more  particular  statement.  We  shall  conclude  this 
section  by  noticing  the  following  facts. 

1st.  The  whole  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  which  has 
so  long  been  the  Diana  of  the  religious  world,  was  the 
invention  of  Zoroaster.  Prideaux,  vol.  I.  p.  230,  thus 
writes:  "And  whether  it  were,  that  these  Magians 
thought  it  would  bring  the  greater  credit  to  them,  or  the 
kino;s,  that  it  would  add  a  greater  sacredness  to  their 
persons,  or  whether  it  were  (rom  both  these  causes,  the 
royal  family  among  tlie  Persians,  as  long  as  this  sect 
prevailed  among  them,  was  always  reckoned  of  the 
sacerdotal  tribe.  They  were  divided  into  three  or- 
ders. The  lowest  were  the  inferior  clergy,  who 
served  in  all  the  common  offices  of  their  divine  wor- 
ship :  next  above  them  were  the  superintendents,  who 
in  their  several  districts  governed  the  inferior  clergy, 
as  the  bishops  do  with  us  ;  and  above  all  was  the 
Archimagus,  or  arch-priest,  who,  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  high  priest  among  the  Jews,  or  the  Pope  now 
among  the  Romanists,  was  the  head  of  the  whole  re- 
ligion. And,  according  to  the  number  of  their  orders, 
the  churches  or  temples  in  which  they  officiated  were 
also  of  three  sorts.  The  lowest  sort  were  the  paro- 
chial churches,  or  oratories,  which  were  served  by  the 
inferior  clergy,  as  the  parochial  churches  are  now  with 
us  ;  and  the  duties  which  they  there  performed  were 
7 


94  AN    INQUIRY PART   I, 

to  read  the  daily  offices  out  of  their  liturgy,  and  at 
stated  and  solemn  times,  to  read  some  part  of  their 
sacred  writings  to  the  people.  In  these  churches 
there  were  no  fire  altars  ;  but  the  sacred  fire,  before 
which  they  here  worshipped,  was  maintained  only  in 
a  lamp.  Next  above  these  were  their  fire  temples,  in 
which  fire  was  continually  kept  burning  on  a  sacred 
altar.  And  these  were,  in  the  same  manner  as  cathe- 
drals with  us,  the  churches  or  temples  where  the 
superintendents  resided.  In  every  one  of  these  were 
also  several  of  the  inferior  clergy  entertained,  who,  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  choral  vicars  among  us,  per- 
formed all  the  divine  offices  under  the  superintendent, 
and  also  took  care  of  the  sacred  fire,  which  they  con- 
stantly watched  day  and  night,  by  four  and  four,  in 
their  turns,  that  it  might  always  be  kept  burning,  and 
never  go  out.  The  highest  church  above  all  was  the 
fire  temple,  where  the  Archimagus  resided,  which  was 
had  in  the  same  veneration  with  them  as  the  temple  of 
Mecca  among  the  Mahometans,  to  which  every  one  of 
that  sect  thought  themselves  obliged  to  make  a  pil- 
grimage once  in  their  lives.  Zoroaster  first  settled  it 
at  Balch,  and  there  he,  as  their  Archimagus,  usually 
had  his  residence.  But  after  the  Mahometans  had 
overrun  Persia,  in  the  seventh  century  after  Christ,  the 
Archimagus  was  forced  to  remove  from  thence  into 
Kerman,  which  is  a  province  in  Persia,  lying  upon  the 
Southern  ocean,  towards  India,  and  there  it  hath  con- 
tinued even  to  this  day.  And  to  the  fire  temple  there 
erected,  at  the  place  of  his  residency,  do  they  now 
pay  the  same  veneration  as  formerly  they  did  to  that 
of  Balch.  This  temple  of  the  Archimagus,  as  also 
the  other  fire  temples,  were  endued  with  large  reve- 
nues in  lands:  but  the  parochial  clergy  depended  sole- 
ly on  the  tithes  and  offerings  of  the  people  ;  for  this 


AN    INQUIRY— PART    I,  95 

usage  also  had  Zoroaster  taken  from  the  Jewish 
church,  and  made  it  one  of  the  establishments  among 
his  Magians." 

Let  it  be  remembered,  that  Dean  Prideaux  was  a 
prophet  of  their  own,  which  forbids  the  slightest  sur- 
mise that  this  account  is  either  misrepresented  or  ex- 
aggerated. But,  while  eating  the  fat,  and  clothing 
himself  with  the  w^ool,  arising  from  such  an  establish- 
ment, he  frankly  confesses  that  it  was  invented  by 
Zoroaster,  concerning  whom  he  says,  p.  220 — "  He 
was  the  greatest  impostor,  except  Mahomet,  that  ever 
appeared  in  the  world,  and  had  all  the  craft  and  enter- 
prising boldness  of  that  Arab."  A  very  good  origin 
indeed  for — "  Mystery  Babylon  the  great,  the  mother 
of  harlots  and  abominations  of  the  earth."  It  was 
surely  proper,  that  the  greatest  imposition  ever  palmed 
on  the  world,  should  be  the  invention  of  one  of  the 
greatest  impostors  the  world  ever  produced.  As  it 
was  invented  at  Babylon,  published  at  Bal)ylon,  and 
imported  from  Babylon,  it  is  very  properly  called — 
^'  Slystery  Babylon  the  great."  After  such  a  dis- 
closure by  one  of  the  craftsmen,  that  man  must  be 
dead  drunk  with  the  wine  of  her  fornications,  who 
still  continues  to  cry—"  great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephe- 
sians." 

2d.  Another  fact  is,  that  all  sects  and  parties  in  re- 
ligion, are  silent  about  the  religion  of  Zoroaster.  The 
Ecclesiastical  hierarchy  has  met  with  both  assault  and 
insult  from  almost  every  sect.  But  in  the  course  of 
our  reading  we  have  never  met  with  any  one  of  them 
who  ventured  to  expose  it  as  an  invention  of  Zoroas^ 
ter.  Many  a  prayer  has  been  made  for  the  downfall 
of  Mahomet  and  the  destruction  of  Paganism :  but 
who  ever  heard  a  prayer  made  for  the  destruction  of 
Magianism  or  the  religion  of  Zoroaster  ?     But  why 


96  AX    INQUIRY PART    1. 

not?  Is  it  not  because  the  creeds  of  the  different 
sects  and  that  of  Zoroaster  are  very  similar?  From 
his  Lord  God  the  Pope,  down  to  the  lowest  dissenter, 
all  firmly  hold  some  articles  invented  by  Zoroaster. 
It  would  not  do  for  any  of  the  sects  to  insult  the  cler- 
gy, by  telling  them  that  Zoroaster  was  the  inventor  of 
their  ecclesiastical  establishment.  No,  they  could  re- 
tort upon  them,  for  if  this  was  any  argument  against 
it,  they  must  admit  it  was  of  equal  force  against  such 
articles  of  their  own  creeds,  as  Zoroaster  was  the  in- 
ventor of  both.  If  they  attacked  the  hierarchy  with 
such  a  weapon  as  this  they  wounded  themselves,  and 
if  the  building  fell  by  such  an  assault,  their  own 
creeds  must  be  demolished  with  it.  The  base  born 
origin  of  the  Mother  of  Harlots  must  be  concealed, 
for  every  grade  of  relationship,  however  distant,  must 
share  in  the  disgrace.  Dean  Prideaux  loved  the  in- 
ventions of  Zoroaster,  but  called  him  the  greatest  im- 
postor that  ever  arose,  Mahomet  excepted.  But  in- 
stead of  this  kind  of  abuse,  the  religious  world  ought 
to  erect  a  monument  to  his  memory,  for  to  him,  more 
than  to  Jesus  Christ,  have  they  been  indebted  for 
much  that  has  been  counted  great,  glorious,  and  good 
in  religion. 

3d.  It  has  been  noticed  by  many  as  a  remaikable 
fact,  that  before  the  captivity  the  Jews  were  prone  to 
idolatry,  but  after  their  return  and  ever  since,  have  held 
it  in  great  abhorrence.  Is  not  this  great  change  in  the 
Jews,  partly,  at  least,  accounted  for  by  their  imbibing 
Zoroaster's  opinions,  which  were  opposed  to  the  wor- 
ship of  idols?  But  this  I  merely  suggest  for  con- 
sideration, and  leave  the  reader  to  liis  own  reflections, 
on  the  topics  which  have  been  discussed  in  the  present 
Section. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  97 


SECTION  V. 

ALL  THE  PASSAGES    IN    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT,  WHERE 
THE   TERM  SATAN  OCCURS,   CONSIDERED. 

The  term  Satan  among  Christians,  is  as  much  a 
proper  name  for  a  fallen  angel,  as  Peter  and  Paul  are 
for  two  of  Christ's  apostles.  In  correction  of  this  mis- 
take, Dr.  Campbell  says,  Dissert.  6,  "  Satan,  though 
conceived  by  us  as  a  proper  name,  was  an  appellative 
in  the  language  spoken  by  our  Lord  ;  for,  from  the 
Hebrew  it  passed  into  the  Syriac,  and  signified  no 
more  than  adversary  or  opponent.  It  is  naturally  just 
as  applicable  to  human  as  to  spiritual  agents,  and  is, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  often  so  applied,"  The  truth 
of  this  statement  we  have  seen,  Sect,  iii- 

It  has  been  alleged  that  the  New  Testament  speaks 
more  frequently  and  explicitly,  about  the  devil  and  sa- 
fari than  the  Old.  Let  us  see  how  this  matter  stands. 
The  term  satan  occurs  thirty-four  times  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  is  fifteen  times  rendered  adversary,  or 
by  some  similar  word.  But  though  it  occurs  thirty- 
five  times  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  rendered  by 
any  word.  It  is  easily  perceived,  then,  that  this  cir- 
cumstance gives  to  the  New  Testament  the  appear- 
ance of  teaching  the  existence  of  such  a  being,  which 
the  Old  has  not.  But  every  man  must  see,  that  it  is 
a  very  false  appearance,  and  is  very  much  increased 
from  the  very  frequent  occurrence  of  the  term 
devil,  and  the  plural  devils,  to  which,  like  the- 
term  satan,  people  have  attached  the  idea  of  a  fall- 
en an^eL      But    it   is   well  known,    that  the   words 


98  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

daimon  and  daimonion,  have  no  reference  to  that  being 
Christians  call  the  devil,  but  to  demons  or  dead  men 
deified,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel.  The  word 
diaholos,  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  thirty-six 
times.  Excluding  all  the  other  places  where  the 
words  devil  and  devils  are  the  rendering  of  daimon 
and  daimonion,  all  must  see  what  an  alteration  it 
makes  on  the  face  of  the  New  Testament.  Even  in 
our  English  version  the  term  diaholos  is  sometimes 
rendered  slanderer  and  false  accuser,  as  the  word  sig- 
nifies. Dr.  Campbell,  where  Judas  is  called  a  devil, 
renders  it  spy,  and  diaholos  is  rendered  in  a  similar 
manner  by  other  translators.  Supposing  then,  that  the 
words  shaitan  and  diaholos,  had  been  rendered  adver- 
sary nnd  slanderer,  or  by  similar  words,  it  would  have 
been  difficult  to  find  a  fallen  angel  under  those  names 
in  the  Bible.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  term  satan 
signifies  an  adversary,  and  is  applied  to  the  angel  of 
Jehovah,  the  evil  passions  of  men,  a  ))iece  of  writing, 
the  evil  principle  deified,  Sic.  The  term  satan  is  used 
in  a  similar  way  in  the  New  Testament,  wliich  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  show. 

Matth.  xvi.  23.  "But  he  turned  and  said  unto  Pe- 
ter, get  ihee  behind  me  satan  :  thou  art  an  ofi^snce 
unto  me  :  for  thou  savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of 
God,  but  those  that  be  of  men."  See  also  the  parallel 
text  in  Mark  viii.  33,  which  I  need  not  transcribe. 
Here  our  Lord  does  not  say  that  Peter  was  possessed 
of  satan,  that  he  acted  like  him,  or  that  he  was  influ- 
enced by  him,  but  })Ositively  calls  one  of  his  own  dis- 
ciples satan.  But  was  Peter  a  fallen  angel  or  wicked 
spirit?  The  expression  "  fj^e^  thee  behind  me  satan,'^ 
is  the  same  that  our  Lord  used,  Luke  iv.  8,  when  he 
was  tempted  of  the  devil  and  satan.  There  is  no- 
thin(][  at  all  remarkable  in  callin;]i;  Peter  satan.  as  Da- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I,  99 

vld  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  were  called  so  in  the 
Old  Testament.  "  Get  thee  behhid  me  adversary," 
was  highly  proper  language,  for  Peter  was  our  Lord's 
adversary,  not  from  design,  but  from  ignorance  and 
mistaken  views,  as  is  evident  from  the  context,  and 
also  from  the  reason  assigned  ;  "  For  thou  savorest  not 
the  things  which  be  of  God,  but  those  which  be  of 
men."  The  Old  and  New  Testament  writers,  there- 
fore, perfectly  harmonise  in  the  sense  attached  to  this 
word. 

Luke  xxii.  31,  32.  '^  And  the  Lord  said  Simon, 
Simon,  behold,  satan  hath  desired  to  have  you  that  he 
may  sift  you  as  wheat."  Peter  in  the  last  text,  was 
a  satan  or  adversary,  and  now  our  Lord  told  him  sa- 
tan desired  to  sift  him  as  wheat.  But  where  in  the 
history  of  Peter,  do  w^e  find  that  an  evil  being  ever  at- 
tempted to  injure  him  ?  But  if  we  consult  verses  32 
— 35,  and  verses  54 — 63,  of  this  chapter,  we  see  that 
Peter  was  three  times  sifted  like  wheat,  by  being  three 
times  charged  with  being  one  of  our  Lord's  disciples, 
and  be  as  often  denying  him.  Peter's  faith  seemed  to 
fail  him  for  a  season,  but  our  Lord  prayed  for  him  that 
it  might  not  entirely  fail.  In  Psalm  cix,  and  other 
places  noticed  in  Section  iii,  we  have  seen  that  the 
unbelieving  Jews  are  called  a  satan  or  adversary  to 
our  Lord.  Here  they  showed  themselves  so  by  sifting 
Peter  as  wheat,  for  their  opposition  was  chiefly  against 
the  Saviour.  To  assert  that  a  fallen  angel  influenced 
the  Jews,  has  no  evidence  to  support  it  from  text  or 
context.  Indeed,  only  render  the  term  satan  adver- 
sary^ and  no  one  would  think  of  a  fallen  angel  as  con- 
cerned in  this  affair.  Our  Lord  only  says,  "  behold, 
the  adversary  hath  desired  you  that  he  may  sift  you 
as  wheat." 

Mark  iii.  23.     "  And  he  called  them  unto  him,  and 


100  AN    INQUIRY PART  I. 

said  unto  them  in  parables,  bow  can  satan  cast  out  sa- 
tan."  See  the  whole  context.  The  following  re- 
marks from  Jahn  are  sufficient  on  this  passage.  He 
says,  p.  "126—"  Jesus,  in  Matt.  xii.  24—30,  Mark 
iii.  22 — 30,  Luke  xi.  16 — 24,  employs  against  the 
Pharisees  this  argumentum  ad  hominem,  which  has 
no  bearing  in  this  case  any  further  than  the  refutation 
of  the  adversary  is  concerned.  The  ground  of  his 
employing  this  species  of  argument  in  the  present  in- 
stance was  this.  The  Pharisees,  if  we  may  believe 
Josephus,  taught  that  the  demons,  by  which  men  were 
possessed,  were  the  spirits  of  bad  men,  who  were  dead, 
and  were  commfssioned  on  their  present  business  of 
tormenting  tlie  children  of  men  by  Beelzebub.  Jesus, 
therefore,  replied,  provided  this  were  the  true  state  of 
the  case,  that  Beelzebub,  by  lending  his  assistance  in 
casting  out  his  own  devils,  was  overturning  his  own 
kingdom.  He  then  adds,  that  this  powerful  spirit, 
for  such  the  Pharisees  supposed  him  to  be,  could 
not  be  compelled  to  perform  such  an  unwelcome 
task,  unless  a  stronger  one  than  Beelzebub  himself, 
should  first  come,  should  bind  him,  and  take  away  his 
arms." 

Luke  X.  18.  ''  And  he  said  unto  them,  I  beheld 
satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven."  The  following 
remarks  from  Jahn  are  also  sufficient  on  this  text.  He 
says,  p.  225 — "Jesus,  in  Luke  x.  17,  does  not  as- 
sert the  operations  of  demons  in  men,  for  he  couples 
satans  with  serpents  and  scorpions,  which  places  us 
under  the  necessity  of  interpreting  all  these  words 
tropically,  and  of  understanding  by  them  cunning  and 
powerful  adversaries,  who  opposed  the  progress  of  the 
Gospel,  but  with  all  their  power  were  unable  to  inter- 
rupt its  advancement.  The  expressions  which  he  em- 
ploys are  as  follows.     '  1  see  satan,'  i.  e,  all  the  adver- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  101 

saries  of  the  Gospel,  who  are  afterwards  called  ser- 
pents, scorpions,  and  the  enemy's  host,  'fall  like  light- 
ning from  heaven,'  i.  e.  from  the  political  heaven,  from 
power  and  authority.  Consult  Isai.  xiv.  12,  13,  Matt, 
24th  chapter,  Luke  x.  15,  Revelation  xii.  7 — 9;  see 
also  Cicero,  where  he  says  to  Mark  Antony,  you  have 
hurled  your  colleagues  down  from  heaven.  (The  ad- 
versaries of  the  Gospel  occur  in  Luke  xxii.  31,  under 
the  name  of  Satan.)  '  Behold,  (he  proceeds,)  I  give 
unto  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents  and  scorpions,  and 
over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy,'  i.  e.  of  overcoming 
and  subduing  by  your  miraculous  gifts  all  adversaries, 
'  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt  you,'  i.  e.  op- 
press and  overcome  you.  '  Notwithstanding,  in  this 
rejoice  not,  that  the  spirits  are  subject  unto  you,  but 
rather  rejoice,  because  your  names  are  written  in 
heaven,'  i.  e.  rejoice  rather  in  the  favor  of  God,  than  in 
the  power  of  casting  out  devils,  or  of  healing  the  most 
difficult  diseases."  In  addition  to  these  remarks  I 
would  ask,  how  many  fallings  from  heaven  has  satan 
had,  for  he  fell  from  heaven  before  he  tempted  Eve, 
and  fell  again  it  seems  while  the  seventy  disciples  were 
on  their  tour  of  preaching  ?  But  how  did  lie  get  to 
heaven  to  make  a  second  fall  from  it,  and  while  there, 
was  he  also  walkinoj  about  on  our  earth  seeking  whom 
he  might  devour  ? 

Luke  xiii.  16.  ''  And  ought  not  this  woman,  being 
a  daughter  of  Abraham,  whom  satan  hath  bound,  lo, 
these  eighteen  years,  be  loosed  from  this  bond  on  the 
Sabbath  day  ?"  Jahn  on  this  passage  says,  p.  227 — 
"Jesus  liberates  the  woman,  described  in  Luke  xiii.  12, 
as  bowed  down  with  infirmity,  without  making  any  men- 
tion of  a  demon  ;  if,  therefore,  a  little  after,  he  asserts, 
that  she  was  a  daughter  of  Abraham,  bound  by  Satan 
for  eighteen  years,  the  expressions  are  to  be  considered 


102  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

as  figurative,  beinor  an  allusion  to  the  loosing  of  oxen, 
which  it  was  lawful  to  do  on  the  Sabbath  in  order  to 
lead  them  to  drink,  and  having  reference  at  the  same 
time  to  an  opinion  among  the  Jews,  that  all  diseases  had 
their  ultimate  origin,  (not  indeed  from  demons^  but 
from  tlie  Devil,  that  overruling  spirit  of  wickedness, 
who  tempted  Eve,  and  to  whom  allusions  are  made  in 
Acts  X.  38,  and  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7."  Dr.  Lightfoot  on 
Matth.  xvii.  says — "  that  the  Jews  usually  attributed 
some  of  the  more  grievous  diseases  to  evil  spirits,  espe- 
cially those  in  which  either  the  body  was  distorted  ,or 
the  mind  disturbed."  Jahn  and  Dr.  Lightfoot  allow 
that  such  opinions  existed  among  the  Jews,  and  we  have 
shown  Sect.  iv.  how  they  came  to  imbibe  them.  But 
no  countenance  is  given  to  the  truth  of  the  opinion, 
that  a  fallen  angel  was  the  cause  of  this  woman's  dis- 
order. It  is  called  "  a  spirit  of  iftjir7niti/.^^  Dr.  Camp- 
bell says,  Dis^ert.  vi. — "  It  is  a  common  idiom  among 
the  Jews,  to  put  spirit  before  any  quality  ascribed  to 
a  pel  son,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad,  mental  or  corpo- 
real. Thus  the  spirit  of  fear,  the  spirit  of  meekness, 
the  spirit  of  slumber,  the  spirit  of  jealousy,  are  used  to 
express  habitual  fear,"  he.  A  spirit  of  infirmity 
then,  was  an  habitual  infirmity,  which  was  certainly 
true  of  this  woman,  for  she  could  in  no  wise  lift  up  her- 
self "  for  eighteen  years."  This  complaint  medical 
men  have  called  'WAe  rigidity  of  the  hack  honeJ^ — 
Notice,  when  our  Lord  restored  her,  he  does  not  com- 
mand satan  to  leave  this  woman,  nor  does  he  rebuke 
him,  but  says — '^  woman,  thou  art  loosed."  Loosed 
from  satan  ?  No,  thou  art  loosed  from  thine  infirmity. 
This  hound  her,  and  was  sufficient  without  his  assis- 
tance. Notice  further,  that  our  Lord  in  the  act  of 
healing  her  "  laid  his  hands  on  her,  and  immediately 
she  was  made  straight  and  glorified  God."     The  ruler 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  103 

of  the  synagogue,  speaking  according  to  the  true  state 
of  the  case,  spoke  of  this  woman  as  laboring  under  a 
mere  bodily  disorder.  He  does  not  say — there  are  six 
days,  in  them  come  and  be  loosed  from  sataiis  bond- 
oge,  but  in  them  come  and  be  healed,  verse  14.  He 
was  filled  with  indignation  because  our  Lord  had  healed 
her  on  the  Sabbatl).  What  was  said  by  our  Lord 
about  satan,  in  defence  of  his  conduct,  is  predicated  on 
two  grounds  ;  1st.  On  the  principles  of  common  hu- 
manity, which  the  Jews  exercised  towards  their  cattle 
on  the  Sabbath.  "Thou  hypocrite,"  says  Jesus,  "doth 
not  each  one  of  you  on  the  Sabbath  loose  his  ox  or  his 
aFS  from  the  stall,  and  lead  him  away  to  watering  ?" — 
What  was  the  inference  from  this?  Ought  not  this 
woman,  a  daughter  of  Ahraham,  to  be  loosed  from  her 
infirmity  on  the  Sabbath  ?  *2d.  He  defends  his  con- 
duct on  the  supposition  that  satan  had  bound  this  wo- 
man. If  they  believed  this,  how  could  they  blame  him 
for  loosing  her  on  the  Sabbath  day.  Who  could  resist 
these  reasons  ?  Accordingly  it  is  said,  verse  17,  that 
"alibis  adversaries  were  ashamed  :  and  all  the  people 
rejoiced  for  all  the  glorious  things  that  were  done  by 
him."  But  let  us  suppose,  that  satan  positively  was 
the  cause  of  this  woman's  disorder,  what  follows?  It 
follows,  that  our  Lord,  neither  on  this  or  any  other  oc- 
casion, warned  men  against  his  great  power  and  ma- 
lignity, nor  were  the  people  half  so  much  alarmed,  as 
they  would  have  been,  if  a  wild  beast  had  yisited  their 
neighborhood.  They  showed  no  fear  respecting  such 
a  powerful  wicked  being.  Whoever  contends  that  sa- 
tan bound  this  woman,  ought  to  contend,  that  all  per- 
sons so  bound  now,  and  why  not  all  diseases,  are  in- 
flicted by  him.  If  this  be  true^  we  are  in  a  miserable 
condition.  Medical  men  may  scatter  all  their  know- 
ledge of  the  healing  art  to  the  winds,  and  henceforth 


104  AN    INQUIRY^ — PART    I. 

learn  to  work  miracles,  or  cultivate  the  friendship  of 
satan,  as  the  only  means  left  them  of  excelling  in  their 
profession. 

Luke  xxii.  3.  "Then  entered  satan  into  Judas,  sur- 
named  Iscariot,  being  of  the  number  of  the  twelve." — 
If  satan  entered  into  Judas,  was  not  Judas  possessed  of 
satan  ?  But  it  is  a  fact,  that  though  persons  are  said 
to  have  been  possessed  of  demons,  yet  we  never  read 
of  one  who  was  possessed  of  the  devil  or  satan.  But 
how  could  satan  be  in  Judas,  tormenting  the  wicked  in 
hell,  and  temping  all  the  world  besides,  unless  we  make 
him  almost  equal  to  God  himself?  And  if  he  did  enter 
Judas  for  the  purpose  of  working  evil,  is  it  not  strange 
that  some  good  angel  did  not  also  enter  him  to  coun- 
ter-work his  evil  devices?  Well,  what  satan  entered 
into  Judas  ?  I  answer,  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  Je- 
sus, the  purpose  to  betray  him.  The  4th  verse  shows 
this,  for  ''  he  went  his  way  and  commimed  with  the 
chief  priests  and  captains  how  he  might  betray  him 
unto  them."      See  on  the  next  passage. 

John  xiii.  27.  •'  And  after  the  sop  satan  entered  into 
him."  What  satan  now  entered  Judas,  for  it  was  said 
in  the  preceding  passage,  that  satan  had  entered  into 
him  ?  1  answer,  his  fixed  determination  immediately 
to  execute  his  purpose.  It  was  just  before  the  last 
Passover,  Judas  purposed  to  betray  Jesus,  and  bargain- 
ed with  the  chief  priests  about  it,  Matth.  xxvi.  14 — 17. 
This  purpose  is  called  satan  entering  into  him,  Luke 
xxii,  1 — 7,  and  the  devil  putting  it  into  his  heart,  John 
xiii.  2.  But,  from  the  time  he  formed  the  purpose,  until 
he  received  the  sop,  none  but  himself,  Jesus,  and  the 
chief  priests  knew  his  design.  At  verse  10,  Jesus 
says,  "ye  are  clean,  but  not  all."  Comp.  verse  1  1. — 
Again,  at  verse  18,  he  says — "  but  that  the  Scripture 
may  be  fulfilled,   he   that  eateth    bread  with  me  hath 


AN    INQUIRY PART  I.  105 

lifted  up  his  heel  against  me."  But  at  verse  21,  Jesus 
says  plainly,  "one  of  you  shall  betray  me."  This  ex- 
cited the  inquiry,  "  Lord  who  is  it  ?"  To  point  the 
person  out,  Jesus  says — "  he  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give 
a  sop  when  I  have  dipped  it.  And  when  he  had  dip- 
ded  the  sop  he  gave  it  to  Judas  "  The  words  before 
us  immediately  follow — "  and  after  the  sop  satan  en- 
tered into  him."  What  connexion  could  there  be  be- 
twixt his  receiving  the  sop  and  a  fallen  angel  entering 
into  hiin  ?  But  there  is  a  rational  connexion  between 
receiving  the  sop,  and  his  determination  to  execute  his 
ipurpqse  immediately.  The  delicate  hints  of  guilt  agi- 
tated Judas'  mind  :  but  giving  him  the  sop,  must  have 
roused  him  to  fury,  as  he  was  now  openly  exposed,  and' 
he  departs  to  execute  his  design.  The  words  which 
follow  confirm  this — "  that  thou  doest  do  quickly." — 
These  words,  though  not  understood  by  the  rest  of  the 
disciples,  appear  to  have  been  well  understood  by  Ju- 
das. They  hastened  his  departure;  for  upon  hearing 
them  he  went  "  immediately  out."  But  v\  here  did  he 
go  to,  and  for  what  purpose?  To  his  employers,  the 
chief  priests,  that  he  might  execute  his  determination. 
See  Matth.  xxvi.  47 — 50.  What  is  a  remarkable  fact, 
and  confirms  the  above  view,  satan  is  never  said  to  have 
entered  into  the  Jews.  And  why  not?  Because  they 
had  always  been  a  satan  or  adversary  to  our  Lord. — 
But  Judas  had  been  one  of  Christ's  professed  friends, 
and  the  same  satan  which  had  always  been  in  the  Jews, 
entered  into  him  when  he  formed  the  design  to  betray 
Jesus,  and  also  when  he  determined  to  execute  his  de- 
sign. To  this  day,  when  a  man  acts  a  very  wicked 
part,  contrary  to  his  former  professions,  we  in  popular 
language  say,  "  satan  has  entered  into  him."  Besides, 
the   view  given  is  in   agreement  with  the  Old  Testa 


106  AN    INQUIRY PART  I. 

ment  usage  of  the  term  satan,  where  it  is  applied  to  the 
evil  principles  and  bad  passions  in  men. 

Acts  V.  3.  "  But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath 
satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to 
keep  back  part  of  the  price  of  the  land  ?"  It  is  not 
said  that  satan  entered  into  Ananias,  but  only  that  he 
had  Jilled  his  heart.  But  what  is  meant  by  the  words 
— "why  hath  satan  filled  thine  heart,"  is  in  verse  4 
thus  explained — "  why  hast  thou  conceived  this  thing 
in  thine  iieart."  Here  two  thinfs  are  obvious.  First, 
what  in  the  one  sentence  is  said  to  be  done  by  satan, 
is  in  the  other  ascribed  to  Ananias  himself;  and  sec- 
ond, what  is  meant  by  satan  filling  the  heart,  is  ex- 
plained to  mean,  Ananias  conceiving;'  this  thing  in  his 
heart.  It  seems  to  be  an  Hebrew  idiom,  and  is  illus- 
trated by  the  words  of  Ahasuerus  to  Esther  the  queen, 
"Who  is  he?  And  where  is  he  tliat  durst  presume  in 
his  heart  to  do  so  ?"  It  is  in  the  margin — "  2vhose  heart 
hath  filled  him^  See  Esth.  vii.  5.  Notice  fiu'ther, 
it  is  not  said  satan  had  filled  the  heart  of  Sapphira, 
verse  9,  Peter  only  says  to  her — "how  is  it  that  ye 
have  agreed  together  to  tempt  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  ?" 
But  why  ?  for  she  lied  as  well  as  her  husband.  This 
is  accounted  for  by  considering,  that  great  or  uncom- 
mon instances  of  natural  or  moral  evil  among  the  Jews 
were  ascribed  to  satan.  Peter  speaks  at  the  outset,  of 
the  greatness  of  the  sin  of  lying  to  the  Hijly  Spirit;  in 
the  popular  language  of  the  times  :  but  he  had  also  ex- 
plained his  meaning,  or  spoken  according  to  the  true 
state  of  the  case,  by  saying,  "  why  hast  thou  conceived 
this  thing  in  thine  heart?"  After  this  it  would  have 
been  incongruous  to  introduce  again  the  popular  lan- 
guage about  satan  in  speaking  to  Sapphira.  Peter's 
explanation  of  the  popular  language — "  why  hast  thou 
conceived  this  thing  in  thine  heart/'  agrees  precisely 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  107 

with  James'  account  how  people  are  tempted  to  sin, 
chap.  i.  13,  14.  James  does  not  allow  any  man  to  say- 
when  he  is  tempted,  that  he  is  tempted  of  God,  for  God 
tempteth  no  man.  But  if  it  be  true,  that  Ananias  was, 
or  any  man  is  tempted  of  satan,  would  he  not  allow 
them  to  say  the  truih  ?  But  James  expressly  declares 
that  every  man  is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn  away  of 
his  own  lust.  Ananias  and  his  wife  were  drawn  away 
by  their  lust  or  love  of  money.  This  satan  filled  their 
heart,  and  they  were  enticed  by  it  to  lie  to  the  Spirit 
of  God.  But  had  a  fallen  angel  enticed  ihem,  why  is 
he  never  bhuned  for  it  by  those  whom  he  seduced? — 
Did  David  blanie  him?  Did  even  Judas  blame  him? 
No,  bad  as  he  was,  he  takes  all  the  blame  to  himself — 
"1  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood."  Nor  is  satan 
ever  threatened  with  any  punishment.  Ananias  and 
his  wife  are  struck  dead  for  their  crime,  but  if  satan  was 
the  chief  agent  why  does  he  escape?  For  a  very  good 
reason,  there  never  was  such  a  being  to  be  punished. 

Acts  xxvi.  18.  "To  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn 
them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of 
satan  unto  God."  The  history  of  Paul's  preaching 
does  not  afford  an  instance  tnat  he  ever  purposed,  or 
actually  did  turn  a  single  individual  from  the  power  of 
a  fallen  angel,  called  the  devil  or  satan.  Had  such  a 
remarkable  thing  happened,  it  would  have  been  noti- 
ced, and  the  person  congratulated  on  account  of  his 
deliverance.  He  turned  many  from  the  power  of  the 
adver'sary,  for  it  is  said  he  turned  away  much  people, 
saying  they  were  no  Gods  which  were  made  with 
hands.  Was  there  no  satan  or  adversary  but  a  fallen 
angel  from  which  he  could  turn  men  ?  The  persecu- 
ting Jews  are  called  satan.  Peter  was  called  satan. — 
And  surely  the  whole  system  of  ignorance  and  super- 
stition, upheld  by  priests  and  civil  rulers,  was  a  satan 


108  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

or  adversary.  See  this  more  fully  shown  on  Eph.  vi. 
11,  in  the  next  Section.  From  this  satan  many  were 
turned,  as  the  history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
shows.  Comp.  Col.  i.  13,  where  we  read  of  men  turn- 
ed from  "  the  power  of  darkness.''''  Accordingly  some 
read  the  passage  before  us  thus :  "  to  open  their  eyes, 
and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  even  from  the 
power  of  satan  unto  God. "  The  darkness  of  ignorance, 
superstition,  and  wickedness,  were  the  satan  from  which 
Paul  turned  men,  and  this  he  did  by  the  light  of  the 
glorious  gospel  of  Christ. 

Rom.  xvi.  20.  "  And  the  God  of  peace  shall  bruise 
satan  under  your  feet  shortly."  It  is  not  easily  con- 
ceived how  a  fallen  angel  was  bruised  under  the  feet 
of  Christians  in  the  apostolic  age.  It  does  not  accord 
with  fact,  and  satan  is  now  believed  to  be  as  subtle, 
powerful,  and  active  as  ever.  The  term  satan  is  fre- 
quently used  to  designate  the  persecuiing  Jews,  and 
this  declaration  of  the  apostle  is  agreeable  to  the  fact, 
for  they  were  bruised  under  the  feet  of  Christians  in  the 
destruction  of  their  city  and  temple,  and  dispersed 
among  all  nations  as  our  Lord  predicted,  Matih.  xxiv. 
At  this  period  the  disciples  of  Jesus  had  rest  from  their 
persecutions. 

1  Cor.  v.  5.  "To  deliver  such  an  one  unto  satan  for 
the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  «;pirit  may  be  saved 
in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  term  spirit,  is 
often  used  in  Scripture  as  equivalent  to  person,  or  for 
the  person  himself.  Paul  ceitainly  did  not  mean  this 
person's  spirit  separate  from  his  body,  for  it  does  not 
appear,  that  his  punishment  included  such  a  separation  : 
nor  that  it  was  to  be  punished  to  the  end  of  the  world 
and  then  saved,  for  he  says  nothing  about  the  destruc- 
tion or  punishment  of  this  spirit.  Besides,  the  com- 
mon belief  is,  that  unless  persons'  spirits  are  saved  be- 


AN    INQUIRY— ^P ART    li  lOO 

fore  death,  they  never  can  be  saved  after  it  ?  If  satan 
was  a  fallen  angel  to  whom  this  person  was  deliveredj 
it  is  rather  strange,  that  such  a  being  should  be  in  any 
way  the  instrument  of  salvation.  Besides,  if  the  day 
of  the  Lord  here  means  the  end  of  this  world,  and  sph'ii 
a  part  of  man  which  exists  separate  from  the  body^ 
why  is  the  salvation  of  his  spirit  only  mentioned?  One 
should  rather  think,  that  it  would  be  the  flesh  that  re- 
quired salvation  from  the  hands  of  satan,  for  he  was  to 
destroy  the  Jlesh  that  the  spirit  might  be  saved.  It  is 
well  known,  that  the  term  satan  signifies  an  adversa- 
ry. It  is  often  applied  to  the  adversaries  of  Christians 
and  Christianity.  This  person  in  the  church  at  Co* 
rinth  was  guilty  of  incest.  See  verse  1.  The  apostle 
commanded  them  to  deliver  him  over  to  this  satan,  or 
to  put  him  away  from  among  themselves,  verse  13. — • 
This  was  to  be  done  for  the  person's  good,  the  destruc- 
tion or  punishment  of  the  flesh,  or  to  bring  him  to  re- 
pentance, and  that  he  micrht  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the 
Lord  JesUs.  The  first  question  that  arises  here  is,  what 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  meant  ?  I  answer,  that  day 
which  our  Lord  had  forewarned  his  disciples  of,  and  ia 
view  of  which  he  exhorted  them  to  be  found  watchful 
and  faithful.  See  Matth.  xxiv.  Well,  what  kind  of 
salvation  did  the  apostle  mean,  when  he  said,  '  that  the 
spirit  or  person  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus?'  I  answer  the  same  kind  of  salvation  enjoyed 
by  all  those  who  endured  to  the  end.  Matth.  xxiv.  13. 
This  person  was  not  believing  to  the  salvation  of  his 
soul  or  personj  but  was  drawing;  back  to  perdition. — 
He  was  not  looking  for  his  Lord's  coming,  but  was  say- 
ing by  his  conduct,  my  Lord  delay eth  his  coming. 
Such  were  the  means  prescribed  for  converting  this  sin- 
ner from  the  error  of  his  way,  and  saving  a  soul  ot 
person  from  death,  and  hiding  a  multitude  of  sins.  Th# 
8 


no  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

means  proved  effectual,  as  is  evident  from  2  Cor.  ii. 
where  Paul  commands  the  Corinthians  to  forgive  him, 
and  to  confirm  their  love  to  him  ;  and  assigns  as  a  rea- 
son why  they  should  do  so,  '  lest  satan  should  get  an 
advantage  of  us  ;  for  we  are  not  ignorant  of  his  devi- 
ces.' What  satan,  pray  ?  The  very  same  satan  or 
the  adversaries  of  the  gospel,  to  whom  this  person  was 
delivered  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh." 

1  Tim.  i.  20.  ''Of  whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander; whom  I  have  delivered  unto  satan,  that  they 
may  learn  not  to  blaspheme."  The  remarks  on  the 
last  text  are  sufficient  here. 

1  Cor.  vii.  5.  "  Defraud  ye  not  one  the  other,  ex- 
cept it  be  with  consent  for  a  time,  that  ye  may  give 
yourselves  to  fasting  and  prayer  ;  and  come  together 
again,  that  satan  tempt  you  not  for  your  incontinency." 
At  Corinth,  prostitution  formed  a  part  of  the  worship 
of  the  gods.  To  avoid  fornication,  the  apostle  com- 
mands that  every  man  should  have  his  own  wife,  and 
every  woman  her  own  husband,  verse  2.  But  if  the 
one  defrauded  the  other,  the  defrauded,  in  such  a  place 
as  Corinth,  was  liable  to  be  tempted  by  satan,  or  the 
adversaries  of  the  gospel,  to  licentiousness.  To  guard 
them  against  bringing  such  a  reproach  on  Christ's  name, 
this  injunction  was  delivered.  Comp.  verse  4,  where 
their  mutual  rights  are  stated.  Butsoine\\hat  of  a  dif- 
ferent view  may  be  given  of  this  passage  in  agreement 
with  the  Scripture  usage  of  the  term  satan.  It  some- 
times designates  lust  or  sinful  desire,  which  might,  if 
the  one  defrauded  the  other,  prove  a  satan  or  adversary 
to  tempt  them  to  licentious  indulgence. 

2  Cor.  ii.  11."  Lest  satan  should  get  an  advantage 
of  us  :  for  we  are  not  ignorant  of  his  devices."  See  on 
1  Cor.  V.  5,  above,  fcr  the  meaning  of  this  text.  I  may 
just  add,  that  the  Scripture  usage  of  the  term  satan, 


AN    INQUIRY ^PART    I.  Ill 

would  warrant  us  to  say,  that  an  unforgiving  temper 
of  mind  was  the  satan  here  referred  to.  It  is  surely  oti 
adversary  to  a  Christian,  and  gets  an  advantage  over 
him  if  he  indulges  it. 

2  Cor.  xi.  14.  "  And  no  marvel ;  for  satan  himself 
is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light."  The  whole 
context  goes  to  show  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of 
human  beings.  He  speaks  1st.  Of  satan,  which  sim- 
ply means  an  adversary;  and  we  think  it  indisputable 
that  this  term  is  applied  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments to  the  unbelieving  and  persecuting  Jews.  They 
were  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light,  for  their  oppo- 
sition was  under  the  pretence  of  great  zeal  for  God  and 
the  law.  It  is  implied,  that  in  reality  they  were  the 
angel  of  darkness,  considered  by  Zoroaster  the  author 
and  director  of  all  evil.  This  was  indeed  the  case  with 
the  Jews,  for  they  were  the  authors  and  directors  of  all 
the  opposition  to  Christians  and  Christianity,  as  the 
New  Testament  shows.  2d.  The  apostle  also  speaks 
of  the  "  ministers'^  of  this  satan.  No  one  we  think  can 
dispute,  that  the  apostle  calls  the  false  teachers  in  the 
church  at  Corinth  the  ministers  of  satan.  They  were 
transformed  as  ministers  of  righteousness,  for  under  pre 
tence  of  preaching  the  gospel  they  perverted  it.  See 
verses  3,  4,  12,  13,  15.  They  preached  another  gos- 
pel, see  Gal.  i.  6—10.  Compare  Acts  xv.  1,  &,c. 
Gal.  V.  1-— 7,  and  many  other  passages.  They  were 
in  heart  opposed  to  the  Gpspel,  and  were  in  fact  joined 
with  the  unbelieving  Jews,  in  opposing  the  truth  and 
the  apostles  who  preached  it.  They  were  the  minis- 
ters or  assistants  of  the  Jews,  who  were  the  open  and 
avowed  adversaries  of  Christianity.  If  satan  was  trans- 
formed into  an  angel  of  hght,  there  was  no  cause  to 
marvel,  that  his  ministers  should  transform  themselves 
iuto  the  apostles  oi  Christ,  and  as  ministers  of  right* 


112  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

eousness.  The  apostle  says  concerninor  them,  "  whose 
end  shall  be  according  to  their  works."  What  end  ? 
The  apostle  tells  us  that  their  end  "  is  destruction," 
Phil.  iii.  18,  19.  The  same  destruction  which  came  on 
the  unbelieving  Jews  whose  ministers  they  were,  see 
Phil.  i.  28,  29;  1  Peter  iv.  17,  18.  See  particularly 
on  Matth.  xxiv.  xxv,  and  2  Thess.  ii.  in  the  Second 
Part. 

2  Cor.  xii.  7.  "  And  lest  1  should  be  exalted  above 
measure,  through  the  abundance  of  the  revelations, 
there  was  given  to  me  a  thorn  in  the  flesh,  the  messen- 
ger of  satan,  to  buffet  me,  lest  I  should  be  exalted 
above  measure."  The  word  which  is  here  translated 
messenger  is  angp.los,  and  which  in  other  places  is  ren* 
dered  angel.  It  was  "  the  angel  of  satan,"  that  buffeted 
PauL  Dr.  Kennicott  says.  Dissert,  i.  p.  100,  "For 
the  messenger  of  sat  art  means  here  a  false  teacher,  in 
opposition  to  a  true  apostle  called  *  the  messenger  of 
God,^  Gal.  iv.  14."  See  Parkhurst  on  the  word  An- 
gelos  t   and  on  the  last  passage  for  the  satan  here  meant. 

1  Thess.  ii.  18.  "Wherefore  we  would  have  come 
unto  you  (even  I  Paul)  once  and  again  ;  but  satan  hin- 
dered us."  Acts  xvii.  1  Thess.  iii.  I — 9,  with  many 
other  passages  show,  that  the  satan  who  hindered  Paul 
from  going  to  the  Thessalonians,  was  the  persecuting 
Jews,  who  are  frequently  called  satan.  Nothing  in 
Paul's  history  shows  a  fallen  angel  ever  troubled  him. 
Only  render  the  term  satan,  adversary  here,  and  in 
other  places,  and  such  a  being  disappears. 

2  Thess.  ii.  9.  "  Even  him^  whose  coming  is  after 
the  working  of  satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs,  and 
lying  wonders."  The  apostle  simply  says  here,  "whose 
coming  is  after  the  working  of  the  adversary."  If  this 
is  understood  of  the  persecutinn;  Jews,  who  are  called  ■ 
satan  in  other  texts,  it  is  agreeable  to  the  fact,  for  many 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    I.  113 

came  in  Christ's  name  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, pretending  to  work  miracles,  so  that  if  it  had 
been  possible  they  would  have  deceived  the  very  elect. 
See  Matth.  xxiv.  and  Whitby  on  2  Thess.  chap.  ii. 

1  Tim.  V.  15.  "For  some  are  already  turned  aside 
after  satan."  What  satan  had  they  turned  aside  after  ? 
The  words  which  immediately  precede  show  this  :  "  I 
will  therefore  that  the  younger  women  marry,  bear  chil- 
dren, guide  the  house,  give  none  occasion  to  the  ad- 
versary to  speak  reproachfully."  The  satan,  after 
whom  they  had  turned  aside,  was  evidently  the  Jews, 
for  they  are  called  both  satan  and  adversary  in  other 
texts,  and  they  did  speak  reproachfully  of  Christians. 
It  is  not  easily  perceived,  how  persons  could  turn  aside 
after  a  fallen  angel,  but  to  apostatise  from  the  faith,  or 
go  over  to  its  adversaries,  is  easily  understood. 

Rev.  ii.  9.  "  I  know  thy  works,  and  tribulation,  and 
poverty,  (but  thou  art  rich,)  and  I  know  the  blasphe- 
my of  them  which  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not,  but 
are  the  synagogue  of  satan."  Who  a  true  Jew  was, 
Paul  informs  us,  Rom.ii.  28,  29.  The  persons  spoken 
of,  said  they  were  Jews,  but  were  not.  They  were  of 
synagogue  of  satan,  belonged  to  the  synagogue  of  the 
unbelieving  persecuting  Jews.  Who  ever  supposed 
that  a  fallen  angel  had  a  synagogue,  and,  that  the  per- 
sons John  speaks  of  belonged  to  it  ?  Nor  can  it  be  be- 
lieved, any  number  of  men  had  a  synagogue  in  those 
days,  which  was  called  "  the  synagogue  of  satan,"  or  of 
a  fallen  angel.  But  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  or  the 
adversary,  occasions  no  difficulty. 

Rev.  iii.  9,  "  Behold  I  will  make  them  of  the  syna- 
gogue of  satan,  which  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not, 
but  do  lie  ;  behold  I  will  make  them  to  come  and  wor- 
ship before  thy  feet,  and  to  know  that  I  have  loved 
thee."     See  on  the  last  passage  a  sufficient  illustration 


114  AN    INQUIRY— PART    1. 

of  this  text.  I  would  only  add,  that  it  has  been  thought 
by  some,  there  is  an  allusion  here  to  the  subjection  of 
Jews  to  the  Christians  in  the  flourishing  state  of  Chris- 
tianity, 

Rev.  ii.  13.  "I  know  thy  works,  and  where  thou 
dwellest,  even  where  satan's  seat  is  :  and  thou  boldest 
fast  my  name,  and  hast  not  denied  my  faith,  even  in 
those  days  wherein  Antipas  was  my  faithful  martyr  who 
was  slain  amona:  you,  where  satan  dwellelh.*^  If  satan 
here  means  a  fallen  angel,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  his 
seat  was  at  Pergamus  in  the  days  of  John.  But  if 
satan  is  only  rendered  adversary,  all  difficulty  is  at  once 
removed.  Pergamus  was  a  noted  place  for  opposition 
to  Christianity,  for  here  Antipas  suffered  death,  and 
Christ's  disciples  are  highly  commended  for  holding 
fast  his  name  in  such  a  place  of  persecution.  It  wiH 
not  be  easy  to  show  how  a  wicked  spirit  had  his  seat 
or  throne  at  Pergamus,  and  at  the  same  time  was  walk- 
inor  about  seekintr  whom  he  midit  devour. 

Ci  o  c 

Rev.  ii.  24.  "  But  unto  you  I  say,  and  unto  the  rest 
in  Thyatira,  (as  many  as  have  not  this  doctrine,  and 
who  have  not  known  the  depths  of  satan,  as  they 
speak)  I  will  put  upon  you  none  other  burden."  Here 
again  it  is  only  necessaiy  to  translate  the  word  satan 
adversary,  and  all  idea  of  a  fallen  angel  disappears. — 
The  deep  things,  or  depths  of  satan,  are  the  depths  of 
the  adversary.  It  is  said  that  the  Gnostics  called  their 
mysteries  the  deep  things  of  God  and  the  deep  things 
of  By  thus.  And  Lowman  calls  it  the  deep  arts  of  de- 
ceit and  error.  Paul  says,  we  are  not  ignorant  of  his 
devices,  2  Cor.  ii.  II.  And  the  whole  conduct  of  the 
persecuting  Jews  is  a  comment  on  this  passage  and 
others  above  considered. 

Such  are  all  the  places  in  the  New  Testament  where 
the  word  satan  occurs,  and  it  is  evident,  the  Old  and 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  115 

New  Testament  usage  of  it  are  similar,  or  rather  the 
same.  In  neither  does  it  designate  a  fallen  an^el, 
whom  Christians  call  the  devil  and  satan. 


SECTION  VI. 

ALL  THE    PASSAGES  WHERE    THE   ORIGINAL    TERM  DIA- 
BOLOS,  TRANSLATED  DEVIL,  IS  USED,   CONSIDERED. 

We  have  seen  that  the  term  satan  means  an  adver- 
sary, and  have  noticed  its  various  applications  by  the 
sacred  writers.  We  are  now  to  pay  some  attention  to 
the  meaning  and  application  of  the  term  (diaholos) 
devil,  where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 

Let  it  be  then  observed,  in  general,  that  the  terra 
devils  is  used  in  the  following  places  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. "  And  they  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices 
unto  devils^  after  whom  they  have  gone  a  whoring. — 
They  sacrificed  unto  devils^  not  to  God  ;  to  gods  whom 
they  knew  not,  to  new  gods  that  came  newly  up,  whom 
your  fathers  feared  not.  And  Jeroboam  ordained  him 
priests  for  the  high  places,  and  for  the  devils,  and  for 
the  calves  which  he  had  made.  Yea,  they  sacrificed 
their  sons  and  their  daughters  unto  devils."  Lev.  xvii. 
7  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  17  ;  2  Chron.  xi.  15  ;  Psalm  cvi.  37. 
The  word  rendered  devils  in  this  last  text  is  daimonion 
in  the  Seventy's  version,  and  also  in  the  following  pla- 
ces :  Psalm  xcvi.  5,  and  xci.  6  ;  Isai.  Ixv.  10,  xxxiv. 
14  and  xiii.  21.  It  is  evident,  these  devils,  or  demons, 
were  only  heathen  idols,  or  Pagan  deities,  which  could 


116  AN    INQUIRY— PART    1. 

neither  do  good  nor  evil  to  any  man.  They  were 
made,  and  some  of  them  were  styled  new  gods,  which 
had  come  newly  up,  and  which  were  not  formerly 
known  by  the  Jews  or  their  fathers.  To  these  demons 
or  gods,  the  Jews  sacrificed  their  sons  and  daughters. 
But  they  were  altogether  different  from  what  is  meant 
by  the  devil  or  satan  ;  for  as  Dr.  Campbell  observes — 
^'  They  could  no  more  be  said  to  have  worshipped  the 
devil,  as  we  Christians  understand  the  term,  than  they 
could  be  said  to  have  worshipped  the  cannibals  of  New 
Zealand  :  because  they  had  no  more  conception  of  the 
one  than  of  the  other."  Dissert,  vi.  He  adds,  "  As 
to  the  worship  of  the  devil,  tou  diaholous,  nothing  can 
be  clearer  than  that  in  Scripture,  no  Pagans  are  charged 
with  it."  The  fact  is,  the  Jews  knew  notliing  about 
the  devil  until  they  went  to  Babylon.  Dr.  Campbell 
says,  "  The  word  diabolos,  in  \ts  ordinary  acceptSiUon, 
signifies  calumniator,  traducer,  false  accuser,  from  the 
verb  diaballein,  to  calumniate."  This  is  also  its  mean- 
ing, as  given  by  Parkhurst  and  other  lexicographers, 
which  need  not  be  quoted.  Its  extraordinary  accep- 
tation, with  them  and  others  is,  it  designates  a  fallen  an- 
gel, who  is  the  implacable  enemy  of  God  and  man. — 
But  the  first  three  passages  which  I  shall  quote,  show 
that  our  translators  understood  the  word  diabolos  in  the 
way  Dr.  Campbell  explains  it,  which  he  says,  is  its  or- 
dinary acceptation.     The  first  is 

1  Tim.  iii.  11.  "  Even  so  must  their  wives  be  grave, 
not  slanderers  (diaholous,)  sober,  faithful  in  all  things." 
Here  pious  women  are  exhorted  not  to  be  slanderers  ; 
literally,  "  not  to  be  devils."  The  very  same  word  is 
used,  verses  6,  7,  in  the  singular  number,  and  is  ren- 
dered devil.  Again,  it  is  said,  Titus  ii.  3,  ^' the  aged 
women  likewise,  that  they  be  in  behavior  as  becometh 
lioWness,  not  false  accusers^^  (diabolous.)    Aged,  pious 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  1  17 

women  are  exhorted  not  to  be  devils !  Again,  2  Tim. 
iii,  3,  speaking  of  those  who  in  the  last  days  should 
have  a  form  of  godliness  but  denying  the  power  of  it, 
they  are  said  to  be  "  without  natural  affection,  truce- 
breakers, /a /se  accusers^^  (diaboloi).  Literally,  devils. 
Suffer  me  now  to  ask,  why  in  these  texts  the  word  was 
not  rendered  devils  ?  The  reason  is  obvious  ;  it  would 
appear  very  strange  to  our  ears  to  exhort  Christian  wo- 
men not  to  be  devils,  for  we  have  associated  the  idea  of 
a  fallen  angel  with  this  word  as  we  have  with  the  term 
satan.  It  would  have  been  a  similar  impropriety,  had 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  David,  and  others  been  called 
satan.  But  to  avoid  this,  satan  is  rendered  adversary 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  above  texts,  the  term 
diaholos  is  rendered  slanderer  and  false  accuser^  These 
texts  however,  show  us,  both  how  it  was  understood  by 
the  apostle  and  also  by  our  translators.  Let  the 
reader  keep  these  remarks  in  view,  while  we  consider 
all  the  other  texts,  where  the  term  diabolos  occurs  m 
the  New  Testament. 

John  vi.  70.  "  Have  not  I  chosen  you  twelve,  and 
one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?"  Dr.  Campbell  renders  the 
term  diabolos  here  spy,  and  Newcome  and  Wakefield, 
render  it  accuser.  This  is  an  agreement  with  the  pre- 
ceding texts,  and  further  remark  is  unnecessary. 

John  xiii.  2.  "  And  supper  being  ended  (the  devil 
having  now  put  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,. 
Simon's  son,  to  betray  him)."  See  on  Luke  xxii.  3, 
and  John  xiii.  27,  in  the  last  Section,  as  a  sufficient 
explanation  of  this  passage.  What  is  said  to  be  done 
by  satan  in  one,  is  said  to  be  done  by  the  devil  in  the 
other.  Suffer  me  here  to  ask,  When  one  man  betrays 
another  in  our  day,  is  the  plea  sustained  in  court  or 
any  where  else,  that  the  devil  urged  him  on  to  it  ? 
And,  would  any  man  hang  himself,  if  he  believed  he 


118  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

was  the  tool  of  such  a  powerful  and  malicious  being  ? 
Judas'  crime  is  wholly  imputed  to  himself,  Acts  i.  17, 
18.  And  every  man  is  conscious  when  he  sins,  that 
he  did  not  need  the  assistance  of  such  a  being.  The 
Scriptures,  in  plain  language,  refer  sin  to  ourselves  and 
not  to  the  devil.     See  James  i.  14,  and  Mark  vii.  21, 

1  Peter  v.  8,  9,  "  Be  sober,  be  vigilant,  because 
your  adversary  the  devil,  as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  ^ 
about,  seeking  whom  he  may  devour  :  whom  resist, 
steadfast  in  the  faith,  knowing  that  the  same  afflictions 
are  accomplished  in  your  brethren  that  are  in  the 
world."  As  this  is  one  of  the  principal  texts  quoted 
in  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  evil  being,  called  the 
devil,  I  shall  consider  it  particularly.  We  have  then, 
1st.  An  exhortation,  "  be  sober,  be  vigilant."  This 
was  addressed  to  Christians  scattered  throughout  Pon- 
tus,  Galatia,  &Lc.,chap.  i.  1.  It  is  so  plain,  tliey  were 
suffering  persecution  from  the  enemies  of  the  gospel, 
that  it  would  be  loss  of  time  to  give  any  proof  of  it. 
2d.  We  have  next  the  reason  assigned  why  this  ex- 
hortation should  be  obeyed.  Why  be  sober  and  vigi- 
lant? "  Because  your  adversary  the  devil,  as  a  roar- 
ing lion,  walketh  about,  seeking  whom  he  may  de- 
vour." It  is  confidently  believed  by  many  good  peo- 
ple, that  this  devil  who  walketh  about  like  a  roaring 
lion,  is  a  fallen  angel,  or  malignant  spirit.  But  I  ask, 
how  is  such  a  belief  to  be  reconciled  with  his  having 
his  abode  in  hell,  with  some  in  the  air,  and  others,  his 
tempting  men  in  all  parts  of  the  earth  at  the  same 
time  ?  Such  a  belief  is  contrary  to  all  facts  and  ex- 
perience. Did  ever  any  person  see  the  devil  in  the 
shape  of  a  lion,  hear  him  roar,  or  is  an  instance  on  re- 
cord in  the  history  of  mankind  of  one  being  devoured 
by  him  ?     Such  idle,  childish  stories  have  been  told  of 


AN     IN^UIRr— PART    1. 


119 


the  devil,  but  what  man  in  our  day  gives  the  least 
credit  to  them.  I  find  human  beings  are  frequently- 
compared  to  lions — Numb,  xxiii.  24  ;  xxiv.  8,  9  ;  Jer. 
1.  17  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  17  ;  also  to  roaring  lions,  Psal.  xxii. 
13  ;  Prov.  xix.  12  ;  xx.  2  ;  Jer.  ii.  15  ;  Isai.  v.  29. 
They  are  also  compared  to  a  devouring  lion,  Psalm 
xvii.  12;  xxii.  21  ;  Jer.  ii.  30  ;  iv.  7  ;  Ezek.  xix.  1 
— 6  :  xxii.  25.  On  examination  I  also  find  that  God 
is  compared  to  a  lion  and  a  roaring  lion,  Isai.  xxxi.  4^ 
Hosea  xi.  10  :  xiii.  7,  8;  Amos  iii.  4 — 8.  Not  one 
instance  can  I  find  where  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel,  is 
compared  to  a  lion.  If  he  is  so  in  this  passage,  it  is 
a  solitary  instance,  which  is  presumptive  evidence  that 
this  was  not  the  apostle's  meaning.  Who  then  was 
this  roaring  lion  ?  Peter  answers  by  saying,  "  your 
adversary  the  dtvil.  The  word  here  rendered  adver- 
sary is  antidikos.  It  only  occurs  in  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing texts  in  the  New  Testament,  Matth.  v.  25  ; 
Luke  xii.  58  ;  xviii.  3.  Parkhurst  says,  it  means  "  an 
adversary  or  opponent  in  a  law-suit,"  and  quotes 
Herodian  in  proof  of  it.  The  text  under  considera- 
tion, is  the  only  one  in  which  he  considers  this  word 
to  mean  a  fallen  angel  or  the  devil.  He  desires  us  to 
compare  Rev,  xii.  10;  Job  i.  9;  ii.  3,  and  Zach.  iii. 
1,  in  proof  that  antidikos  in  this  text  means  such  a 
wicked  spirit.  It  is  very  plain  that  he  considered  ad- 
versary and  devil  to  mean  the  same  thing.  We  have 
not  only  compared,  but  have  considered  the  passages, 
Section  iii.,  and  our  readers  may  judge  from  the  evi- 
dence we  have  adduced  if  they  teach  such  a  doctrine. 
In  short,  to  say  that  the  word  devil,  or  the  word  adver- 
sary here  used  as  its  explanation,  refers  to  a  fallen  an- 
gel, is  taking  for  granted  the  very  question  at  issue. — 
Who  then  was  this  adversary,  who  went  about  like  a 
roaring  lion  ?     By  recurring  to   the  New  Testament 


120  AN    INQUIRY PART    I, 

usage  of  antikeimai,  also  rendered  adversary,  we  shall 
see  this. 

1st.  It  is  rendered  adversary  and  applied  to  men 
who  were  the  adversaries  of  Christ  and  of  Christiani- 
ty, particularly  the  persecuting  Jews.  Thus,  when 
our  Lord  had  refuted  the  Jews  who  had  found  fault 
with  him  for  healing  a  person  on  their  Sabbath,  it  is 
said — '"  all  his  adversaries  were  ashamed,"  Luke  xiii. 
17.  He  also  said  to  his  disciples — "  I  will  give  you 
a  mouth  and  wisdom  which  all  your  adversaries  shall 
not  be  able  to  gainsay  nor  resist,"  Luke  xxi.  15. — 
Again,  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xvi.  9. — "  For  a  great  door 
and  effectual  is  opened  unto  me,  and  there  are  many 
adversaries.^^  And  Philip,  i.  28,  he  says, — "  And  in 
nothing  terrified  by  your  adversaries  :  which  is  to 
them  an  evident  token  of  perdition."  And  in  1  Tim. 
V.  14,  he  exhorteth  young  women  to  conduct  them- 
selves as  to  give  "  none  occasion  to  the  adversary  to 
speak  reproachfully"  In  all  these  texts  the  adversa- 
ries of  the  gospel,  particularly  the  Jews  are  referred 
to  by  the  term  adversary. 

2d.  It  is  rendered  by  the  words  opposeth  and  con- 
trary, and  applied  to  the  following  things.  To  the 
man  of  sin.  "  Who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself 
above  all  that  is  called  God,"  2  Thess.  ii.  4.  To  the 
opposition  between  flesh  and  spirit.  "  For  the  flesh 
lusteth  against  the  spirit  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh, 
and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,"  Gal.  v. 
17.  And  in  1  Tim.  i.  10,  it  is  used  to  express  what- 
ever is  opposed  to  the  truth.  ''  And  if  there  be  any 
other  thing  that  is  contrary,  or  an  adversary,  to  sound 
doctrine."  It  is  then  beyond  all  fair  debate,  that  an- 
tikeimai,  adversary,  is  not  once  used  in  reference  to 
tlie  devil  or  saian,  though  most  people  say  he  is  the 
greatest  adversary  of  both  God  and  man.     The  fact 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  121 

is  certain   from  the  above  texts,  and  the  whole  New 
Testament  is  an  illustration  of  it,  that   the  opposing 
Jews  were  the  adversary  of  Christians  and   the  chief 
cause  of  all  their   persecutions.     They  were  the  de- 
vil,  the   slanderer,  or  false  accuser,  who  went  about 
as  a  roarinff  lion  seeking;  whom  he  mio-ht  devour.    See 
Acts  xvii,  and  indeed  all  the  New  Testament.     It  is 
also  evident,  that   the  lusts  and  evil  passions  of  men 
are  termed  adversary  in  several  texts.     And  why  are 
they  termed  so  ?     I  answer,  because  it  is  this  devil  or 
adversary  within  men,  which  makes  them  devils  or  ad- 
versaries in  their  conduct.     I  may  add,  the  term  satan 
we  have  seen  signifies  an  adversary,  and  devil  and  sa- 
tan  are  used   synonimously  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  both  terms  are  used   to  express  opposing  persons 
and  opposing  things.     That  person  or  thing,  is  a  de- 
vil, satan,  or  adversary  to  another  which  is  opposed  to 
it,     The  unbelieving,  persecuting  Jews   are  in  scrip- 
ture compared  to  a  lion.     Thus  Paul  says,  2  Tim.  iv, 
16,  17. — '^  At  my  first  answer  no  man  stood  with  me, 
but  all  men  forsook  me  :  I  pray  God  that  it  may  not  be 
laid  to  their  charge.     Notwithstanding,  the  Lord  stood 
with  me  and  strengthened  me ;  that  by  me  the  preach- 
ing might  be  fully  known  and  that  all  the   Gentiles 
might  hear;  and  I  was  delivered  out  of  the  mouth  ot 
the  lion."     It  is  thought  by  some,  that  by  the  lion, 
Paul  referred  to  Nero  or  his  prefect  Helius  Cesarianus, 
to  whom  he  committed  the  government  in  his  absence, 
with  power  to  put  to  death  whom,  he  pleased.     The 
reason  given  for  this  application  of  lion  to  Nero  is, 
that   Marsyas  said  to  Agrippa  when  Tiberias  died — 
"  the  lion  is  dead."     Whether  Paul   ever  heard  this 
saying  is  uncertain,  and  if  he  had,  we  doubt  whether 
his  wisdom  and  prudence,  in  his  then  crhical  circum- 
stances, would  have  allowed  him  to  make  such  an  al- 


122  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

lusion.  What  leads  me  to  conclude  that  Paul,  by  the 
lion,  referred  to  his  persecutors  the  Jews,  are  the  fol- 
lowing things  : 

1st.  They  actually  went  about  like  a  lion  to  devour 
him,  and  at  the  time  he  wrote  he  was  in  bonds  from  their 
persecutions.  Nero,  nor  any  other  Homan  magistrate 
sought  afcer  Paul,  until  stirred  up  by  the  Jews.  He 
was  even  obhged  to  appeal  to  Csesar  to  be  delivered 
from  their  hands. 

2d.  In  Psalm  xxii.  13,  21,  where  Christ  and  his 
enemies  are  spoken  of,  the  persecutinuj  Jews  are  ex- 
pressly compared  to  a  roaring  lion.  If  Paul  compared 
them  to  this,  he  had  the  example  of  David  for  it.  To 
this  Psalm  probably  Paul  alluded  in  the  passage  be- 
fore  us. 

3d.  To  understand  the  apostle  by  the  lion,  referring 
to  the  persecuting  Jews,  rendei's  its  usage  uniform  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  to  understand  it  a  fallen  an- 
gel, is  at  variance  with  its  entire  usage  throughout  the 
Bible.  It  is  agreeable  to  the  fact,  that  the  Jew^s  went 
about  as  a  roaring  lion,  but  it  is  contrary  to  all  facts 
and  experience,  that  a  fallen  angel  ever  did  this. — ■ 
But  Peter  adds,  "  whom  resist  steadfast  in  (he  faith, 
knowing  that  the  same  afflictions  are  accomplished  in 
your  brethren  that  are  in  the  world."  The  "  afflic- 
tions" of  Christians  in  the  apostolic  age  arose  from  the 
persecuting  Jews.  Compare  verse  10,  and  various 
other  parts  of  the  Epistle.  But  was  a  fallen  angel  in 
various  places  at  the  same  time  afflicting  them?  Be- 
sides, how  could  they  resist  steadfast  in  the  faith  an 
invisible  spirit?  It  was  with  wicked  men  they  had  to 
contend,  and  from  whom  they  suffered.  See  1  Peter 
iv.  12;  i.  7.  The  word  devil,  we  have  seen,  signifies 
a  slanderer  or  false  accuser.  Peter  then  says,  in  this 
passage, — ''  your  adversary  the  slanderer  or  false  ac* 


AN     INQUIRY PART    I.  123 

cuser  goeth  about  as  a  roaring  lion."  That  this  re- 
ferred to  men,  no  one,  we  think,  can  doubt  who  reads 
chap.  ii.  12,  15,  20;  ill.  15 — 17,  and  iv.  4,  of  this 
epistle.  Nor  will  any  one  dispute,  that  the  words  o' 
antidikos,  'uinon  diaholos  may  be  rendered  thus  :  "  the 
adversary  your  false  accuser,"  or,  "  your  adversary  the 
false  accuser."  The  whole  epistle,  is  a  comment  on 
this  view  of  the  passage,  nor  would  any  one  have  ever 
thouo-ht  of  a  fallen  ano-el,  had  the  word  diaholos  been 
rendered  false  accuser,  as  it  is  in  some  other  places. — 
Common  sense,  and  common  scripture  usage  of  words, 
lead  to  no  other  interpretation.  h  should  be  remem- 
bered Peter  was  a  Jew,  and  was  faniiliar  with  the 
meaning  of  the  terms  satan  and  devil.  Jesus  had 
called  him  satan,  and  Judas  a  devil ;  and  could  there 
be  any  impropriety  in  calling  the  persecutors  of  Chris- 
tians ''  your  adversary,  the  devil  ?"  And  on  account 
of  their  ferocious  cruelty  comparing  them  to  a  roaring 
lion  \valkino:  about  seeking  whom  he  mi^ht  devour. 

It  is  objected  to  this  view  of  the  passage — "the 
persecutors  of  Christians  in  Peter's  day  were  manyy 
but  here  he  speaks  of  them  as  one.''  This  objection 
has  no  force,  for  it  is  well  known,  that  in  Scripture  the 
singular  is  frequently  put  for  the  plural,  and  the  reverse. 
Besides,  ail  know,  that  when  many  are  spoken  of  col- 
lectively they  are  considered  as  one,  and  especially 
when  they  act  in  unison  about  any  object.  The  per- 
secutors of  Christians  were  many,  but  never  did  many 
act  more  in  unison  about  any  object  than  they  did  in 
opposing  Christians  and  Christianity.  It  is  further  ob- 
jected— "Peter  speaks  emphatically  of  the  devil,  as 
if  he  was  a  real  being,  for  he  calls  him  the  devils — 
Answer;  the  word  diaholos  here  is  without  the  article, 
therefore  this  objection  is  without  force.  Even  if  it 
had  been  used,  the  objection  would  derive  little  or  no 


124  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

force  from  it,  for  it  was  very  natural  and  proper  for 
Peter  to  speak  of  the  persecutors  of  Christians  in  this 
emphatic  manner. 

John  viii.  44.  "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil, 
and  the  lusts  of  your  father  ye  will  do  :  he  was  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beorinnintr,  and  abode  not  in  the  truth, 
because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.  When  he  speaketh 
a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own  :  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the 
father  of  it."  Tf  the  devil  was  the  father  of  the  un- 
believing Jews  whom  our  Lord  here  addressed,  it  is 
plain  they  were  his  sons  or  children.  The  question 
then  is,  what  devil  was  their  father?  Professor  Stuart 
shall  inform  us.  In  his  letters  to  Dr.  Miller,  pp.  95 — 
99,  he  thus  writes: 

"  The  word  son  was  a  favorite  one  among  the  He- 
brews ;  and  was  employed  by  them,  to  designate  a 
great  variety  of  relations.  The  son  of  any  thing,  ac- 
cording to  oriental  idioms,  may  be  either  what  is  close- 
ly connected  with  it,  dependent  on  it,  like  it,  the  con- 
sequence of  it,  worthy  of  it,  &fc.  But  this  view  of 
the  subject  must  be  explained,  by  actual  examples 
from  the  Scriptures.  The  following  I  have  selected 
from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

"  The  son  of  eight  days,  i.  e.  the  child  that  is  eight 
days  old  ;  the  son  of  one  hundred  years,  i.  c.  the  per- 
son who  is  one  hundred  years  of  age  ;  the  son  of  a 
year,  i.  e.  a  yearlihg  ;  the  son  of  my  sorrow,  i.  c.  one 
who  has  caused  me  distress  ;  the  son  of  my  right  hand, 
i.  e.  one  who  will  assist  or  be  a  help  to  me  ;  son  of  old 
age,  i.  e,  begotten  in  old  age  ;  soJi  of  valor,  i.  e.  bold, 
brave  ;  son  of  Belial,  [lit.  son  of  good-for-nothing,] 
i.  e.  a  worthless  man  :  son  of  wickedness,  i.  e.  wicked  ; 
son  of  a  murderer,  i.  e.  a  murderous  person  ;  son  of 
my  vows,  i,  e.  son  that  answers  to  my  vows ;  son  of 
death,  i.  e.  one  who  deserves  death  ;  son  of  perdition^ 


Al^    INQ.UIRY— ^PART  I.  125 

L  e.  one  who  deserves  perdition  ;  son  of  smiting,  i,  e. 
one  who  deserv^es  stripes  ;  son  of  Gehenna,  i.  e.  one 
who  deserves  Gehenna  ;  son  of  consolation,  i.  e.  one 
fitted  to  administer  consolation  ;  son  of  thunder,  i.  e. 
a  man  of  powerful,  energetic  eloquence  or  strength; 
son  of  peace,  i.e.  a  peaceable  man  ;  son  of  the  morn- 
ing, i.  e.  morning  star;  son  of  the  burning  coal,  i.  e. 
sparks  of  fire  ;  son  of  the  bow,  i.  e.  an  arrow  ;  son  of 
the  threshing  floor,  i,  e,  grain  ;  son  of  oil,  i.  e.  fat ; 
son  of  the  house,  i.  e.  domestic  or  slave  ;  son  of  man, 
i.  e.  man,  as  it  is  usually  applied  ;  but  perhaps  in  a 
sense  somewhat  diverse,  in  several  respects,  as  applied 
to  the  Saviour. 

"  Every  kind  of  relation  or  resemblance  whether 
real  or  imaginary,  every  kind  of  connexion,  is  charac- 
terised by  caUing  it  the  son  of  that  thing  to  whi^h  it 
stands  thus  related,  or  with  which  it  is  connected." 

The  Professor  adds,  "  It  will  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  when  we  investif!;ate  the  meanino^  of  the 
phiase  son  of  the  devil,  in  the  Scriptures,  we  are  in- 
vestigating the  usus  loqnendio^  a  Sliemitish  dialect. — - 
This  will  of  course  be  conceded,  in  regard  to  the 
phrase  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  and  I  may  add,  that 
all  critics  are  now  aojreed,  that  althouoh  the  words  of 
the  New  Testament  are  Greek,  the  idiom  is  Hebrew." 
Mr.  Stuart  theE  tells  us  that  "  the  son  of  any  thing, 
acco^-ding  to  oriental  idiom,  may  be  either  what  is 
closely  connected  vnth  it,  dependent  on  it,  like  it,  the 
consequence  of  it,  worthy  of  it,  ^c."  He  adds, 
'*'  every  kind  of  relation  or  resemblance,  whether  real 
or  imaginary,  every  kind  of  connexion  is  characterised 
by  calling  it  the  son  of  that  thino-  to  which  it  stands 
thus  related,  or  with  which  it  is  connected.^'  It  is  a 
plain  case  then,  that  if  the  Jews  were  of  their  father 
the  devil,  or  sons  of  the  devil,  and  if  the  term  devil 
9 


126  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

means  a  slanderer,  our  Lord  only  told  them  that  they 
were  ^'slanderous  persons."     Were  they  not  closely 
connected  with  slander,  depended  on   it,  were   like  it, 
and  worthy  of  it  ?     Mr.  Stuart,  by  the  above  remarks, 
forever  settles  the  question,  that  neither  here  nor  any 
where  else,  son  of  the  devil  refers  to  a  fallen  angel. — 
1  might  here  close  my  remarks,  but   I   shall   briefly 
notice  what  is  further  said  in  the  passage,  that  we  may 
see   how  it  agrees  with  the  view  which  he  has  given 
us.     It  is  then  said,  ^^  and  the  lasts  of  your  jather  ye 
will  doy     Well,  did  not  the   Jews  slander  the   Sa- 
viour ?     They  certainly  did.     But  it  is  said,  "  He  was 
a  murderer  J rom  the  beginnin^.''^    W^e  have  seen  from 
the  above  quotation,  that  "  son  of  wickedness,"  sim- 
ply means  ''' wicked  ;"  and  that  "  son  of  a  murderer" 
signifies  ''■a  murderous  person."     That  the  Jews  were 
murderous  persons  no  one  disputes.     But,  it  will  be 
said,  how  were  the  Jews  murderous  persons  from  the 
heginning  of  the  world  ?     This   is  not  said.     They 
are  only  said  to  have  been   "  murderers   from  the  6e- 
ginningy     The  term  arhes,  here  rendered  the  begin- 
ning, is  used  to  express,  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's 
ministry  and  miracles,  John  viii.  25  ;  vi.  64  ;  xv.  27  ; 
XVI.  4  ;  and  ii.   1 1  ;    1  John  i.  1  ;    ii.  7,  13,  14,  24 ; 
and   iii.  11  ;  2d  Epistle,  verses  5,  6.     In  short,  it  is 
used  to  express  the  beginning  of  persons  and  things  in 
a  variety  of  ways.     See   Rev.  i.  8  ;  iii.  14;  xxi.  6, 
and  xxii.  13  ;  Mark  i.   1  ;  Philip  iv.  15  ;  Heb.  ii.  3  ; 
Luke  i.  2  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  13  ;  Acts  xi.  15  ;  Heb.  vii.  3  ; 
Acts  XX  vi.  5  ;  Matth.  xxi  v.  8  ;  Mark  xiii.  8  ;  Heb.  iii. 
14  ;  Col.  i.   18,     In  the  following  places  it  refers  to 
the  beginning  of  the  world:   Heb.  i.  10;  Matth.  xix. 
4,  8,  and  xxi  v.  21  ;  Mark  x.  6  ;  2  Peter  iii.  4.     But 
let  the  reader  notice,  that  in  these  texts  some  addition- 
al phrase  or  circumstance  is  introduced,  showing  that 


AN    INCtUIRY PART    I.  127 

tlie  beginning:  of  the  world  is  meant.     We  are  not  left 
to  infer  this,  merely  from  the  term  beginning.     Such 
are  all  the  places  where  this  ^\^orcl  is  to  be  found,  ex- 
cept John  i.  1,  wliere  it  is  said  "in  the  beo;inning  was 
the  Word."     This  forms  no  particular  exception  to  its 
^^eneral    usage.     See   the  Unitarian    and    Trinitarian 
controversy  respecting  this  text.     The  only  other  text 
which  can  be  deemed  an   exception,  is   1  John  iii.  8, 
which  will  be  considered  immediately.     But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  confine  its  sense  to  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel  dispensation,  for  the  very  same  devil  the  Jews 
were  of,  bad   been  from  the  beginning  of  the  world; 
had  deceived  Eve,  and  led  Cain  to  murder  his  brother 
Abel,      Tlie    Jews  had   been    "  murderous   persons" 
from  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  dispensation.     From 
our  Lord's  birth  to  his  death  they  sought  to  slay  him. 
In  verses  37,  40,  he  accused  tlie  Jews  pf  seeking  to 
kill  him ;  and  this  they  did  because  his   woj'd  had  no 
place  in  them,  verse  37,  they  abode  not  in  the  truth  ; 
there  was   no  truth    in  them.     They  were   of  their 
father  the  devil.     What  this  was,  is  explained  verse 
23.       "  Ye  are  from  beneath, — ye  are  of  this  world." 
"And  whosoever  committeth  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin," 
verse  34.     And  chap.  iii.  31,  our  Lord  told   them, 
"  he  that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthy  and  speaketh  of  the 
earth."     What  was  it  then  to  be  from  beneath,  of  thi§ 
world,  and  earthy  ?     Was  it  not  to  judge  after  the  fleshj 
or  from  their  earthly  corrupt  principles  and  lusts  I  versB 
15.     If  the  Jews  had  abode  in  the  truth,  or  Christ's 
word  had  been  in  them,  they  would   not   have   been 
murderous   persons,  or  made  God's  law  void   through 
their  traditions.    Had  they  believed  Moses,  they  would 
have  believed  in  Jesus,  for  he  wrote  of  him.     John  v, 
45—47.     Perhaps  it  will  be  s^tid — Are  not  the  Jews 
exprgssl^  distin^'uisbe4  from  the  .devil;  w^P  is  called 


128  AN    INq.UIRY PART  I. 

their  father  ?  Son  and  father  must,  in  this  case,  be 
the  same.  Professor  Stuart  informs  us  above,  and  I 
think  correctly,  that  "  so?i  of  a  murdtrcr^^  is  simply  a 
Hebrew  idiom  for  "  a  murderous  person.^''  The  Jews 
were  so,  and  ih.ey  spoke  a  lie  and  were  the  fathers  of 
it.  What  lie  did  they  speak  ?  They  said,  verses  39, 
40.  '^  Abraham  is  our  father."  They  lied  ;  for,  says 
our  Lord  to  them — "  if  ye  were  Abraham's  children, 
ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham,  But  now  ye 
seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the  truth 
which  I  have  heard  of  God  :  this  did  not  Abraham." 
He  adds,  verse  41,  "ye  do  the  deeds  of  your  father." 
What  father?  What  they  had  seen  or  learned  from 
their  own  evil  lusts  and  passions  ;  and  this  accords 
witli*  the  source  from  which  all  evil  proceeds,  stated  by 
James,  chap.  i.  14,  15. 

We  have  seen  that  the  principle  of  evil  was  not 
only  personified  but  deified.  In  this  passage,  and 
others,  it  is  spoken  of  as  a  person  or  being.  Eve's 
lust  said  to  her,  "  ye  shall  not  surely  die,"  which  was 
a  lie.  It  is  in  the  passage  before  us  represented  as  the 
father  of  lies,  and  the  lusts  or  desires  of  this  father  the 
Jews  did.  Lust  from  the  beginnint;  abode  not  in  the 
truth,  for  it  was  by  lust  conceiving  contrary  to  the 
commandment,  the  first  deviation  from  truth  was  made, 
and  the  first  lie  told  ;  and  when  lust  said  "  ye  shall 
not  surely  die,"  it  was  not  only  a  liar,  but  the  father 
of  it.  From  our  mother  Eve  to  the  present  day,  all 
men  who  listen  to.  the  lies  of  their  own  lusts,  contrary 
to  God's  commandments,  have  found  that  the  ways  of 
transgressors  are  hard.  Men  obeying  the  voice  of 
their  lusts,  murder  themselves,  are  led  to  murder 
others,  and  have  turned  the  world  into  a  Golgotha. — 
But  while  lust  is  the  true  cause  of  all  the  mischief,  an 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  129 

imaginary  being  has  been  invented  and  believed  in,  to 
bear  the  blame  of  it. 

In  concluding  these  remarks  I  would  ask  every  can- 
did man,  did  our  Lord  mean  to  tell  the  Jews  that  they 
were  of  their  father,  a  fallen  angel,  and  that  the  lusts 
of  this  fallen  angel  they  would  do?  And  did  he  mean 
that  this  fallen  angel  was  a  murderer  from  the  begin- 
ning? That  this  wicked  being  abode  not  in  the  truth, 
because  there  is  no  truth  in  him?  And  that  "when 
be  speaketh  a  lie  he  speaketh  of  his  own  :  for  he  is  a 
liar  and  the  father  of  it?"  Yes,  all  this  is  confidently 
asserted  to  be  our  Lord's  meaning.  But  why  should 
It  be  believed,  tintil  it  is  first  proved,  that  an  angel  fell 
from  heaven  and  became  a  devil?  The  belief  of  this 
is  premature,  until  it  is  shown  that  such  a  being  really 
exists.  To  say  he  was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  and  refer  to  Gen.  iii.,  will  not  do,  for  we 
have  seen  that  the  serpent  that  deceived  Eve  was  not 
a  fillen  angel ;  nor  is  such  a  being  once  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Nor  will  it  answer  any  better  to 
refer  to  Cain's  murder  of  Abel,  for  not  a  single  hint  is 
dropped,  that  the  devil  or  a  fallen  angel  had  any  con- 
cern with  it.  Besides,  when  the  Scriptures  trace 
crimes  to  their  source  in  plain  language,  they  never 
refer  them  to  the  devil,  but  to  lust  within  men,  see 
James  iv.  1—16,  and  i.  13—16,  Matth  xv.  18—21. 

1  John  iii.  8,  9.,  10.  "  He  that  committeth  sin,  is 
of  the  devil  ;  for  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning. 
For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that 
he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.  Whosoever 
h  born  of  God  doth  not  eomrnit  sin  ;  for  his  seed  re- 
inaineth  in  him  :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born 
of  God.  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest, 
and  the  children  of  the  devil:  whosoever  doeth  not 
righteoiisaess,  is  not  of  God,  neither  he  that  loveth  not 


130  AN    INQUIRY FART  J, 

bis  brother/'  Tbis^  and  the  preceding  passage,  were 
written  by  the  same  person.  The  language  and  sen- 
timent of  both  are  similar,  and  the  quotations  and  re- 
marks ma«le  are  applicable  to  both.  We  shall  add 
some  brief  remarks  here,  John  says,  "  he  that  com- 
mitteth  sin  is  af  the  devilJ^  He  v/as  writing  to  Chris- 
tians, who  were  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus,  and  could  not  say  to  theniy  as  he  did  to  the  un- 
believing Jews,  "  ye  are  of  your  father  ibe  devil." — 
It  appears  from  ve»-se  7,.  that  he  said  this  to  guard 
them  against  sin.  Comp.  John  viii.  34  and  Rom.  vi, 
10 — 23.  '^  For  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning, ^^ 
This  corresponds  to  John  viii.  44,  "  iie  ivin  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning y  What  devil  sinned  or 
was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning?  An&v.er;  at 
verse  15,  it  is  said — "  whosoever  hateth  bis  brother  is^ 
a  murderer,"  and  at  verse  12,  "  not  as  Cain  who  was 
of  that  wicked  one  and  slew  his  brother."  Cain,  like 
the  Jews,  was  of  his  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of 
bis  father  he  did.  But  no  man  will  assert  that  Moses 
intimates  a  fallen  angel  influenced  Cain  to  siay  AbeL 
If  he  that  hateth  his  brother  is  a  murderer,  Cain  was- 
one  before  he  slev/  Abel.  It  was  from  this  hatred,  m 
hh  heart  the  bloody  deed  proceeded,  and  which,  in 
the  eye  of  both  God  and  man,,  constitutes  murder. — 
Welly  the  very  first  tiine  satein  is  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture, the  term  is;  applied  to  a  well,  and  the  explana- 
tion given  us  in  tbe  margin^  is  hatred.  See  Sect.  iii. 
Besides,  in  Sect,  ii,  it  has  been  shown,  that  Eve's  lust 
or  desire,  when  it  had  conceived,  brought  forth  sin  : 
and  this  devil  sinned  from  the  beginning.  It  came  to 
l>e  personified^  yea,  was  deified,  as  we  have  seen  in 
Sections  iii.,  iv  ,  is  called  satan  in  the  book  of  Job, 
and  devil  and  satan  in  other  parts  of  Scripture.  This 
Yiew  is  agreeable   to  the  passage,  for  it  is  said — ''  hi? 


AN    INQUIRY^ PART    I.  131 

that  committGtb  sin  is  of  the  devil."  It  is  added,  '^  for 
this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  ivas  manifested,  that  he 
might  destroy  the  luorks  of  the  devils  What  then 
were  the  works  of  the  devil  ? 

1st.  All  agree  that  sin  is  the  work  of  the  devil. — > 
What  then  produces  sin  ?  James  says,  chap.  i.  15, 
'•^  then,  lust  when  it  hath  conceived  bringeth  forth  sin." 
Is  it  not  plain  that  lust  is  the  devil  ?  Compare  Mark 
vii.  21,  22. 

2d.  Death  is  also  the  work  of  the  devil.  Death 
entered  by  sin,  and  sin  entered  by  lust  conceiving  and 
bringing  it  forth  ;  and  when  sin  is  finished  it  bringeth 
forth  death.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death,  see  Rom.  v. 
12,  and  vi,  23. 

Was  the  Son  of  God  manifested  then  to  destroy  sin  ? 
This  is  expressly  declared,  verse  5. — "And  ye  know 
that  he  was  manifested  to  take  away  our  sins  ;  and  in 
him  is  no  sin."  We  think,  that,  "•  to  take  away  our 
sins,"  in  this  verse,  is  the  same  as  to  destroy  the  works 
of  the  devil  in  the  passage  before  us  ;  and  in  both 
Christ  is  said  to  be  manifested  to  do  this.  Yea,  through 
death  he  destroyed  him  that  had  the  power  of  death, 
that  is  the  devil.  See  on  Heb.  ii.  14,  below^  Does 
the  Son  of  God  by  his  manifestation  destroy  death  ? — 
Nothing  can  be  more  explicitly  stated  than  this.  ''I 
will  ransom  them  from  the  power  of  the  grave;  I  will 
redeem  them  from  death :  O  1  death,  I  will  be  thy 
plagues  ;  O  !  grave,  1  will  be  thy  destruction  :  re- 
pentance shall  be  hid  from  mine  eyes."  Hos.  xiii.  14. 
See  1  Cor.  xv.  53 — 58.  At  verse  26,  it  is  expressly 
declared,  ^'  the  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is 
death."  Sufter  me  now  to  ask — Is  it  any  where  said 
Christ  was  manifested  to  destroy  a  fallen  angel  ?  This 
I  think  no  man  will  affirm.  Why  then  is  it  so  confi- 
dently affirmed  that  the  devil  is  a  fallen  angel  ? 


l^  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

Heb.  ii.  14,  15.  '^Forasmuch  then  as  the  children 
are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  like- 
wise took  part  of  the  same  ;  that  through  death  he 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that 
is  the  devil ;  and  deliver  them,  who  through  fear  of 
death,  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage.'^ 
Supposing  we  admit  for  a  moment  the  existence  of 
such  a  being  as  the  devil,  what  follows  from  this  pas- 
sage ?  It  follows,  that  he  is  to  be  destroyed,  for  it  is 
expressly  said,  Christ  died,  that  "  through  death  he 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that 
is  the  devil.^^  But,  do  our  orthodox  friends  allow,  that 
he  is  to  be  destroyed  through  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  7 
No,  they  aver,  that  he  is  to  exist  forever,  the  enemy 
of  God  and  the  tormentor  of  men.  But  if  this  text 
teaches  his  existence,  it  as  certainly  teaches  his  de- 
struction. I  urge  then  the  belief  of  both,  or  the  re- 
jection of  both  doctrines.  But  this  is  not  all,  for  if 
this  text  teaches  the  devil  to  be  a  fallen  angel,  it  as 
explicitly  declares  that  he  has  the  power  oj  death. — 
By  the  power  of  death,  is  generally  understood,  pow- 
er to  produce  death,  and  retain  men  in  this  state  when 
dead.  But  is  it  not  a  very  extraordinary  supposition, 
that  such  a  wicked  being  should  have  such  a  power? 
Besides,  is  it  not  contrary  to  other  parts  of  Sciipture, 
where  God  says,  "  I  kill  and  I  make  alive  ;  1  bring 
down  to  the  grave  and  also  bring  up  again."  Can 
any  one  think  God  has  delegated  this  power  to  the  de- 
vil ?  By  taking  into  view  other  parts  of  Scripture  we 
find  death  ascribed  to  a  very  different  cause  than  the 
power  of  a  fallen  angel.  Rom.  v.  12,  and  in  chap, 
vi.  23,  we  are  told  that  the  waives  of  sin  is  death,  but 
not  a  word  is  said  as  if  the  devil  had  any  concern  with 
it.  James,  chap  i.  15,  also  says,  that  when  "sin  is 
finished  it  bringeth  forth  death,"  but  says  not  a  word 


1 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  133 

about  the  devil  having  any  power  to  produce  it,  or 
continue  it.  Nor  does  the  apostle  say  the  sting  of 
death  is  the  devil,  but  the  sting  of  death  is  sin.  Be- 
sides, when  speaking  of  the  victory  obtained  by  Jesus 
Christ  over  death,  the  apostle  does  not  say — "O  !  de- 
vil, where  is  thy  power  over  death,"  but  says,  "  O  ! 
death,  where  is  thy  sting,  O  !  grave,  where  is  thy  vic- 
tory ?  The  sting  of  deatli  is  sin  ;  and  the  strength  of 
sin  is  the  law.  But  thanks  be  to  God  who  giveth  us 
the  victory  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The 
apostle  here  renders  thanks  to  God  for  victory  over 
sin,  and  the  law  which  is  the  strength  of  sin,  and  also 
over  death,  but  renders  no  thanks  to  God  through  Je- 
sus Christ  for  victory  over  a  fallen  angel  or  the  devil. 
Can  any  candid  nian  then  think,  that  if  such  a  being 
had  power  over  death,  that  Paul,  in  giving  thanks  to 
God,  w^ould  have  omitted  thanking  him  for  victory 
over  this  malignant,  wicked  being,  who  had  so  long  and 
universally  exercised  it  ?  We  should  rather  think, 
had  Paul  believed  this,  victory  over  the  devil  would 
have  been  one  of  the  principal  things  he  would  have 
mentioned. 

What  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  devil  referred  to 
in  this  passaije  ?  I  answer,  whatever  has  the  power 
of  death.  What  then  has  the  power  of  death  ?  1  an- 
swer, sin  and  the  law  the  strength  of  sin,  by  which 
death  came  first  to  be  introduced,  and  by  which  it  hath 
passed  through  to  all  the  human  race.  See  Rom.  v. 
12,  13.  The  judgment.  Gen.  iii.  19,  was  by  one  to 
condemnation.  Death  reigned  by  one  man's  offence, 
and  no  power  of  man  has  been  able  to  resist  his  uni- 
versal sway  ;  and  but  for  the  death  of  Christ,  and  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  no  hope  of  a  resurrection 
could  ever  be  entertained. 

But  let  us  examine  the  passage  itself  a  little  more 


134  AN    INq,UIRY— PART    I. 

particularly.  ''  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise 
took  part  of  the  same."  Well,  for  what  purpose  did 
he  take  part  in  flesh  and  blood  ?  "  That  through 
death  he  mighi  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of 
death,  that  is  the  devil."  We  have  shown,  on  1  John 
iii.  8,  what  the  works  of  the  devil  are,  and  that  Christ 
Was  manifested  to  destroy  them.  But  here  Christ  is 
said  to  destroy  the  devil  himself.  What  devil  was  it 
then  which  produced  such  works  ?  Such  is  the  work* 
manship,  but  what  devil  was  the  workman?  James 
tells  us  in  plain  words — "  then  when  lust  hath  con- 
ceived it  bringetii  forth  sin  ;  and  sin  when  it  is  finished 
bringeth  forth  death,"  Christ  by  his  death  would  ac- 
complish very  little  to  the  purpose,  to  destroy  a  fallen 
angel,  or  even  to  destroy  sin  and  death,  if  lust  which 
bringeth  forth  sin  was  not  destroyed.  It  would  only 
be  like  lopping  off  the  branches  from  a  poisonous  tree, 
while  the  stock  from  which  they  all  sprung,  was  allow- 
ed to  remain.  But  Christ,  by  his  death,  is  not  only 
to  destroy  sin  and  death,  the  works  of  the  devil,  but 
Just,  or  the  devil.  He  is  not  only  to  destroy  the  work- 
manship but  the  workman,  not  merely  the  branches 
but  the  root,  not  only  the  streams  of  sin  and  death, 
but  the  fountain  from  which  they  have  flowed.  He  is 
to  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is  the 
devil.  See  Col.  i.  20;  Eph.  i.  10;  1  Cor.  xv.  But 
it  ought  further  to  be  noticed,  that,  "  the  strength  of 
sin  is  the  laiv.^^  It  is  this  which  makes  sin  to  be  what 
it  is,  for  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,  and  where 
there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression.  The  law 
has  always  said — "  the  soul  that  sinneth  shall  die." — 
The  law  of  Moses  entered  that  the  offence  might 
abound.  It  gendered  to  bondage,  and  was  the  minis- 
tration of  death.     2  Cor.  iii.  7.     Comp.  Rom.  v.  20, 


AN    INQUIRY— PART    I.  135 

21  ;  Gal.  iv.  '24.  It  could  not  give  life,  but  cursed 
every  one  who  did  not  continue  in  all  things  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them.  Gal.  iii.  21,  10. 
Well,  did  Christ  through  death  abolish  the  law  ?  The 
word  \vhich  is  in  this  passage  rendered  cicstr'oy,  Park- 
hurst  says,  means,  "  to  render  ineffectual,  abolish,  an- 
nul, destroy."  It  is  the  same  word  which  in  2  Cor. 
iii.  7,  is  rendered  doiie  away,  and  applied  to  the  law 
of  Moses,  which  w^as  done  away  in  Christ :  and  is 
rendered  abolished,  Eph.  11.  15,  when  speaking  of  this 
very  law.  It  is  also  rendered  abolished,  2  Tim.i.  10, 
where  it  is  said  of  Christ,  "who  hath  abolished,  death, 
and  hath  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through 
the  gospel."  This  then  is  agreeable  to  the  fact. — 
Christ,  through  death,  destroyed  or  abolished  the  law, 
which  was  the  strength  of  sin,  and  denounced  death 
on  the  transgressor.  It  had  the  power  of  death,  and 
might  with  as  much  propriety  be  called  the  devil  or 
accuser  as  the  writing,  Ezra-iv.  6,  was  called  a  satan 
or  adversary  to  the  Jews.  The  law  is  expressly  said 
to  have  been  the  accuser  oi  t\\Q  Jews,  John  v.  45 — 47. 

But  it  is  added — "and  deliver  them  who,  through 
fear  of  death,  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage." 
The  Jews  were  kept  in  bondage  under  the  law.  But 
Christ  delivers  from  this  bondage,  Rom.  viii.  15  ;  v.  1  ; 
viii.  1  ;  and  viii.  14.  Whoever  believes  in  Christ,  is  deliv- 
ered not  only  from  the  law  which  is  the  strength  of  sin, 
but  is  led  to  crucify  his  flesh  with  its  affections  and 
lusts.  And  he  is  delivered  from  the  fear  of  death,  by 
the  knowledge  of  life  and  immortality  brought  to  light 
by  the  gospel.  Indeed,  the  ultimate  end  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  is  to  bring  men  to  a  state  of  incorruption  and 
glory.     See  1  Cor.  xv. 

Acts  xiii.  10.  "  O  !   full  of  all  subtilty,  and  all  mis 
chief,  thou  child  of  the  devil,  thou  enemy  of  all  right 


136  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

eousness  ;  wilt  ihou  not  cease  to  pervert  the  right  ways 
of  the  Lord?"  The  quotation  from  Professor  Stuart, 
on  John  viii.  44  above,  equally  illustrates  this  passage. 
The  term  devil  signifies  a  slanderer.  Child  of  a  slan- 
derer, according  to  Mr.  Stuart,  signifies  "  a  slanderous 
person,"  as  son  of  a  murderer,  means  "  a  murderous 
person."  In  fact,  Paul,  verse  8,  gives  for  substance 
this  very  explnnation.  "  Elymas,  the  sorcerer  with- 
stood them,  seeking  to  turn  away  the  deputy  from  the 
faith."  Being  full  of  all  subtilty  and  mischief,  he  was 
a  satan  or  devil,  in  opposing  and  slandering  the  faith 
of  Christ. 

Matth,  xiii.  39.  "  The  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the 
devil,"  The  whole  of  this  context  is  considered  in  the 
Second  Part,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred.  See  Mr. 
Stuart's  remarks  quoted  above  on  John  viii.  44.  The 
question  then  is,  difl  a  fallen  angel  mix  those  wicked 
children  with  the  children  of  the  kingdom  ?  This  must 
be  affirmed,  by  those  who  say  that  tlie  devil  is  a  fallen 
angel.  But  though  this  is  asserted,  we  have  never  seen 
any  proof  of  it,  nor  will  it  be  easily  explained,  how  such 
a  being  could  do  this.  Besides,  we  do  not  perceive 
what  need  there  was  for  the  services  of  such  a  being  to 
produce  such  a  crop.  What  then  is  meant  by  the 
devil  that  sowed  the  tares  ?  In  the  Second  Part  we 
have  shown,  that  the  lares  were  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
who  at  the  end  of  the  world  or  age  were  destroyed. — 
Well,  what  devil  sowed  them  ?  The  same  devil  or 
satan  who  pur  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  to  betray  Jesus. 
No  other  devil  was  required  to  produce  a  crop  of  tares 
or  wicker]  men,  but  the  evil  principles  of  their  own 
hearts,  for  they  were  of  their  father  the  devil  and  the 
lusts  of  their  (\uher  they  did.  See  on  John  viii.  44, 
above. 

Matth.  xxv.  41.  ''  Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them 


AN    INQUIRY PART   I.  137 

on  the  left  hand,  depart  from  nae  ye  cursed,  into  fever- 
lasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  annjels." — 
This  passat^e  must  be  noticed  in  the  Second  Part,  in 
considerinir  Matth.  chaps,  xxiv.  25.  Here  I  shall  only 
notice  the  following  things.  1st.  It  has  been  pioved, 
we  think  beyond  all  controversy,  that  the  unbeheving, 
persecuting  Jews  are  repeatedly  called  the  devil  and 
satan.  2d.  It  has  also  been  proved,  that  the  angels  or 
messeno-ers  of  this  satan,  were  the  false  teachers,  or 
those  wlio  joined  with  the  persecuting  Jews  in  opposing 
the  gospel  and  persecuting  those  v\  ho  preached  it.  See 
on  2  Cor.  xi.  14  and  xii.  7,  in  Section  v.  See  also 
the  next  Section.  As  this  will  not  be  disputed,  let  us, 
3d.  Notice  the  everlasting  fire  which  is  here  said  to  be 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  This  everlast- 
ing fire,  is  not  said  to  have  been  prepared  for  those 
whom  our  Lord  is  represented  as  addressing  thus — 
"  depart  from  me  ye  cursed."  No  ;  it  is  said  to  have 
been  prepared  for  the  persecuting  Jews  and  their  angels 
or  messengers.  What  then  was  this  everlasting  fire? 
In  my  Inquiry  into  the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus 
and  Gehenna,  chap.  ii.  Sect.  iii.  the  following  things 
have  been  shown  at  length,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader. 
It  has  been  shown,  that  fire  is  a  figure  used  in  Scrip- 
ture to  express  the  temporal  judgments  of  God  which 
came  on  the  Jews  in  the  destruction  of  their  city  and 
temple  ;  that  punishment  which  they  have  been  suffer- 
ing for  nearly  two  thousand  years,  and  are  still  endu- 
ring. It  has  also  been  shown,  that  the  phrase  "ever- 
lasting fire,"  is  used  as  an  equivalent  expression  for 
"  hell  fire."  All  these,  and  other  things  connected 
with  this  subject,  have  been  shown  there,  and  need  not 
be  repeated  here.  See  on  this  also  2  Thess.  chap.  i. 
considered  in  the  Second  Part  of  this  work.  4th.  To 
whom  did  our  Lord  refer  when  he  said,  ''  depart  from 


138  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

me  ye  c'jrs?d"  into  everlasting  fire?  The  answer  to 
this  question  will  be  given  in  considering  Matlh.  chaps, 
xxiv.  XXV.  in  the  Second  Part,  referred  to,  which  to 
avoid  repetition  we  shall  omit  here. 

Acts  X.  38.  ''  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  power;  who  went  about 
doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the 
devil:  for  God  was  with  him."  Our  Lord  healed  those 
who  were  possessed  with  demons,  and  cast  them  out : 
but  it  is  no  where  said  that  he  cast  out  diaboloi,  devils  ; 
and  this  is  the  only  place  where  he  is  said  to  have 
healed  those  who  were  oppressed  of  the  devil.  la 
curing  persons  he  often  commanded  the  demons  to  de- 
part from  them,  yet  on  no  occasion  does  he  ever  speak 
to  diaholos,  the  devil,  and  command  him  to  depart. — 
His  temptation  in  the  wilderness  may  be  thought  an 
exception  to  this  remark,  which  will  be  considered  in 
its  place.  If  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel,  inflicted  bodily 
diseases  in  those  days,  we  can  see  no  good  reason  why 
he  should  not  in  these,  for  few  think  his  power  is  con- 
tracted or  his  malice  abated  by  the  lapse  of  seventeen 
centuries.  But  who  in  our  day  ascribes  diseases  to  the 
devil  ?  If  it  is  done,  it  is  me»'ely  in  compliance  with 
a  popular  mode  of  speaking.  The  question  will  then 
be  asked — what  devil  weie  those  persons  oppressed 
with,  for  it  is  said  our  Lord  healed  all  who  were  op- 
pressed of  the  devil  ?  In  answer  to  this,  let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  Peter  is  here  evidently  speaking  of  our 
Lord's  kindness  in  healing  men  of  diseases  generally, 
whatever  they  were.  They  are  spoken  of  in  the  ag- 
gregate, and  are  called  being  "  oppressed  of  the  devil.^^ 
This  is  in  perfect  agreement  with  what  has  been  stated 
Sections  iii.  and  iv.  that  satan,  the  devil,  or  Ahraman, 
was  the  author  of  all  evil,  just  as  much  as  the  good  god 
Yazdan;  was  the  author  of  all  good.     That  thtJ  -J^^ws 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  139 

had  imbibed  such  an  opinion,  and  used  language  in  ac- 
cordance with  it,  has  been  shown.  Ascribing  all  dis- 
eases here  to  the  o)3pression  of  the  devil,  shows  that 
Peter  S[)oke  in  accordance  with  this  popular  opinion. 
This  our  Lord  did,  in  saying,  that  satan  had  bound  a 
woman  eighteen  years  with  an  infirmity.  Satan  is  also 
said  to  liave  afflicted  Job,  but  it  has  been  shown,  that 
this  very  account  is  introduced,  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
futing such  an  opin.on,  and  establishing  that  God  is  the 
author  of  affliction?  as  well  as  of  prosperity. 

Eph.  iv.  '21.  "  Neither  give  place  to  the  devil."  In 
the  preceding  ver?e,  the  apostle  exhorts—"  be  ye  an- 
gry and  sin  not  ;  let  not  the  sun  ^lo  down  upon  your 
wrath."  He  immediately  adds — "  neither  give  place 
to  the  devil."  What  devil  ?  Evidently  wrath  ;  for 
by  letting  the  sun  go  down  upon  their  wrath,  they  gave 
place  to  this  devil ;  or,  it  gave  occasion  to  the  enemies 
of  the  gospel  to  speak  reproachfully.  It  is  not  easy  to 
understand  how  by  anger  they  gave  place  to  a  fallen 
angel.  Besides,  men's  wrathful  passions  are  ascribed 
to  themselves  in  Scripture.    See  James  iv.  1—6. 

Eph,  vi.  11.  "Put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God,  that 
ye  may  be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil." 
See  the  whole  context.  See  also  all  the  other  texts 
where  the  enemies  of  Christianity  are  called  the  devil 
and  satan.  What  in  this  verse  is  called  collectively 
the  devil,  is  thus  particularised,  verse  12.  '' For  we 
wrestle  not  against  flesh  and  blood,''  ov,  we  wrestle  not 
merely  with  men.  For  this  sense  of  the  phrase  j^esA 
and  blood,  see  the  following  among  other  texts,  Matth. 
xvi.  17,  1  Cor.  XV.  50,  Gal.  i,  16,'  Heb.  ii,  14.  ''But 
against  principalities,'^  or  supreme  governors.  For 
this  sense  of  the  word  principalities,  see  Rom.viii.38, 
Tit.  iii.  1.  ''  Against  powers,'^  or,  against  magistrates 
clothed  with  authority.     See  for  this  sense  of  the  word 


140  AN    INQUIRY— PART   I, 

powers,  Rom.  xiii.  1 — 3.  It  seems  to  include  supreme 
rulers  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical.  See  Luke  xii.  11. 
Col.  i.  16,  Eph.  i.  21,  Col.  ii.  10,  Luke  xx.  2o'. 
"  Against  the  ruhrs  of  the  darkness  of  this  u'orJd.^^ 
Wakefield  renders  the  passasje  thus — ''  Clothe  your- 
selves in  the  whole  armor  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able 
to  stand  against  the  devices  of  the  accuser.  For  we 
not  only  have  to  wrestle  against  flesh  and  blooii,  but 
against  authority,  against  the  powerf,  against  the  rulers, 
of  this  dark  age*,  against  the  wickedness  of  spiritual 
men  in  a  heavenly  dispensation."  In  his  note  he  says, 
"  viz.  ao;ainst  Jewish  governors,  who  have  a  dispen- 
sation of  religion  from  heaven,  as  well  as  against  hea- 
then magistrates,  under  the  darkness  of  superstition  and 
idolatry."  By  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world, 
Dodridge  understands  the  "  heathen  rulers ;  and  by 
flesh  and  blood  the  lower  ranks  of  mankind."  These 
remarks  are  a  sufficient  illustration  of  this  passage.  If 
it  is  asked — Wliat  darkness  did  the  apostle  refer  to  ?  I 
answer,  the  ignorance,  superstition,  and  wickedness 
which  abounded  both  among  the  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
Comp.  Luke  xxii.  53,  Col.  i.  13.  It  is  well  known, 
that  principalities  and  powers,  both  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical, Jewish  and  heathen,  were  opposed  to  the 
gospel.  They  were  the  rulers  of  this  darkness,  and 
the  people  were  often  excited  against  Christianity  by 
the  prevailing  ignorance  and  popular  superstitions.  See 
Acts  xix.  For  the  Sciipture  usage  of  the  words  spirit- 
ual and  high  or  heavenly  places,  compare  Rom.  xv, 
27,  1  Cor.  ix.  11,  1  Peter  ii.  5,  Col.  iii.  J  6,  John  iii. 
12,  Eph.  i.  20  and  iii.  10.  A  phrase,  the  reverse  of 
the  entire  expression,  ^^  spiritual  wickedness  in  high 
places,^^  occurs  Eph.  i.  3,  and  assists  in  explaining  it. 
But,  let  any  one  go  over  this  passage,  and  see  if  he  can 
give  any  thing  like  a  rational  interpretation  of  it,  on  the 


AN     INQUIRY-^PART    I.  141 

supposition   that  the  devil    referred    to   was    a  fallen 
angel  ? 

1  Tim.  iii.  6,  7.  ''Not  a  novice,  lest  being  lifted  up 
with  pride,  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of  the  devil. 
Moreover,  he  must  have  a  good  report  of  them  which 
are  without ;  lest  he  fall  into  repraach,  and  the  snare 
of  the  devil."  What  devil  does  the  apostle  refer  to? 
In  answer  to  this  let  us  hear  the  following  writers. — - 
Wakefield  renders  the  passage  thus — "  No  novice  ;  lest 
he  be  puffed  up,  and  so  fall  into  flanje  from  the  accuser. 
He  ought  also  to  have  good  testimony  from  without ; 
lest  he  fall  into  reproach,  and  a  snare  of  the  accuser." 
See  a  similar  rendering  in  the  Improved  Version. — - 
IVrKnight,  on  this  passage,  says—"  According  to  Eras- 
mus, this  clause  should  be  translated,  \fall  into  the 
condemnation  of  the  accuser,''  A  sense  which  the  word 
diaholos  hath,  verse  11.  For  he  supposes  that  by  the 
accuser  is  meant,  the  persecuting  Jevv^s  and  Gentiles, 
who  were  ready  to  condemn  the  Christians  for  every 
misdemeanor."     See  remarks  on  the  next  passage. 

2  Tim.  ii.  24,  25,  26.  "  And  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  must  not  strive  ;  but  be  gentle  unto  all  men,  apt 
to  teach,  patient.  In  meekness  instructing  those  that 
oppose  themselves  ;  if  God,  peradventure,  will  give 
them  repentance,  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth : 
and  that  they  may  recover  themselves  out  of  the  snare 
of  the  devil,  who  are  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will." 
The  principal  question  to  be  considered  here  is — What 
is  the  snare  of  the  devil  ?  In  the  preceding  text,  some 
were  in  danger  of  falling  into  it,  and  here  we  read  of 
some  being  in  it,  and  needing  to  be  recovered  out  of  it. 
They  are  described  as  persons  who  have  not  repented, 
who  have  not  acknowledged  the  truth,  but  are  opposing 
themselves  to  it.  The  servant  of  the  Lord,  in  attempt- 
ing  their  recovery,  must  not  strive,  but  be  gentle  unto 

10 


142  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

all  men.  He  must  be  apt  to  teach  ;  he  must  be  pa- 
tient ;  and  in  meekness  he  must  instruct  those  in  the 
snare  of  the  devil,  or  those  who  oppose  themselves,  who 
have  not  repented  and  acknowledged  the  truth.  It 
should  seem  then,  that  both  from  the  situation  of  those 
persons,  and  also  the  way  in  which  they  are  delivered, 
the  snare  of  the  devil  is  their  opposition  lo  the  gospel, 
and  the  various  ways  and  means  by  which  its  enemies 
}3revented  men  from  believing  it.  IVl 'Knight  says — 
"  The  snare  of  the  devil,  out  of  which  ihe  opposers  of 
the  gospel  are  to  be  taken  alive  by  the  servant  of  the 
Lord,  signifies  those  prejudices,  and  errors,  and  habits 
of  sensuality,  which  hindered  both  Jews  and  Gentiles 
in  the  first  age  from  attending  to  the  evidences  of  the 
gospel."  In  this  view  the  snare  of  the  devil  is  stated. 
Col.  i.  13,  Rom.  vi.  17,  and  their  recovery  out  of  it, 
Acts  xxvi.  18,  and  many  other  similar  passages. 

James  iv.  7.  "  Submit  yourselves  therefore  to  God. 
Resist  the  devil  and  he  will  flee  from  you."  The  pre- 
ceding verses  point  out  this  devil  to  be  envy  and  pride, 
or  their  evil  lusts  and  passions.  Comp.  chap.  iii.  15, 
16  and  i.  13.  That  men's  lusts  and  passions  are  called 
the  devil  and  satan  in  other  passages  has  been  shown. 
Instead  of  indulging  these,  we  are  called  to  resist  them. 
Comp.  verse  8.  It  is  easily  understood  how  we  can 
resist  such  a  devil  as  this  ;  but  we  have  no  clear  ideas 
on  the  subject,  to  understand  it  of  an  invisible,  fallen 
angel.  The  terms  devil  and  satan,  being  used  to  de- 
signate men's  evil  lusts  and  passions,  appear  to  be  the 
foundation  of  all  the  other  senses  in  which  those  terms 
are  used  in  Scripture.  It  was  Judas'  evil  lusts,  which 
(nade  him  a  devil,  and  on  this  account  these  terms  are 
used  to  designate  the  enemies  of  the  gospel.  In  short, 
it  is  such  evil  lusts  and  passions,  which  make  men  sa^ 
tans  or  devils.     Accordingly,  it  is  difficult  to  decide  in 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  143 

some  texts,  to  which  these  terms  are  applied.  Nor  is 
it  of  importance  to  decide  ;  hence,  in  some  texts,  we 
have  given  both  views  as  agreeable  to  the  Scripture 
usasje  of  these  terms. 

Jude  9.  "  Yet  Michael,  the  archangel,  when  con- 
tending with  the  devil  (he  disputed  about  the  body  of 
Moses)  durst  not  bring  against  him  a  railing  accusation, 
but  said,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee."  Whitby,  in  his  pre- 
face to  Jude,  quoting  from  Dr.  Lightfoot,  says  .  "  In 
citing  the  story  of  Michael,  the  archangel,  contending 
with  the  devil  about  the  body  of  Moses,  verse  9,  he 
doth  but  the  same  that  Paul  doth,  in  naming  Jannes 
and  Jambres,  2  Tim.  iii.  8,  namely,  allege  a  story 
which  was  current,  and  owned  among  that  nation, 
though  there  was  no  such  thing  in  Scripture;  and  so 
he  argueth  with  them,  from  their  own  authors  and  con- 
cessions :  for  among  the  Talmudists,  there  seems  to  be 
something  like  the  relics  of  such  a  matter,  viz.  of  Mi- 
chael and  the  angel  of  death,  disputing,  or  discoursing, 
about  fetching  away  the  soul  of  Moses."  Jude  here, 
then,  reasons  with  the  persons  he  addresses,  on  a  re- 
ceived story  among  them,  for  the  purpose  of  refuting 
their  wicked  conduct  in  speaking  evil  of  dignities.  In 
this,  he  acted  as  our  Lord  did,  in  reasoning  on  the 
popular  opinion,  that  satan  had  bound  a  woman  eigh- 
teen years,  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  his  adversaries. 
But  the  truth  of  this  story  is  no  more  admitted  in  the 
one  case,  than  the  correctness  of  the  opinion  is  in  the 
other.  Both  are  introduced  merely  for  the  sake  of  ar- 
gument, without  any  regard  to  their  truth  or  falsehood. 
This  story  about  Michael  and  the  devil  must  have  been 
invented  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity  or 
soon  after  it.  Before  the  captivity  we  never  read  of 
angels  having  names.  Nor  before  the  captivity,  does  it 
appear^  that  the  Jews  knew  an^  thing  about  a  fallen 


144  AN    INQUIRY— PART    2* 

called  the  devil  and  satan.  Besides,  the  words  tvbich 
Michael  used  in  dispute  with  the  devil,  "  the  Lord  re-* 
buke  thee,"  are  taken  from  Z-acbariah  iii.  2,  and  it  is 
well  known  that  Zachariah  prophesied  during  the  cap- 
tivity. See  on  this  passage  Sect.  iii.  The  following 
quotation  from  Jafm,  not  only  shows  us,  that  similar 
opinions  to  that  in  the  passage  before  us  existed  among 
the  Jews,  but  when  and  how  they  came  to  adopt  them. 
He  says,  pages  235-— -6  :  ''  The  more  recent  Hebrews, 
adhering  too  strictly  to  the  letter  of  their  Scriptures,  ex- 
ercised their  ingenuity,  and  put  in  requisition  their  faith,- 
to  furnish  the  monarch  Death  with  a  subordinate  a";ent 
or  angel,  viz.  the  prince  of  bad  spirits,  ho  diaholos. 
otherwise  called  Sammael,  and  also  Ashmedai,  and 
known  in  the  New  Testament  by  the  phrases,  the 
prince  of  this  world,  the  tempter,  who  hath  the  power 
of  death.  The  Hebrews,  accordingly  in  enumerating 
the  attributes  and  offices  of  the  prime  minister  of  the 
terrific  king  of  Hades,  represent  him  as  in  the  habit  of 
making  his  appearance  in  the  presence  of  God,  and 
demanding  at  the  hand  of  the  Divinity  the  extinction, 
in  any  given  instance,  of  human  life.  Having  obtain- 
ed permission  ta  that  effect,  he  does  not  fail  of  making 
a  prompt  exhibition  of  himself  to  the  sick  ;  he  then 
gives  thetn  drops  of  poison,  which  they  drink  and  die. 
Comp.  John  xiv.  30,  Hebrews  ii.  14.  Hence  origi- 
nate the  phrases,  "  to  taste  of  death,^^  and  "  to  drink 
the  cup  oj  death,^^  which  are  found  also  among  the 
Syrians^  Arabians,  and  Persians,  Matthew  xvi.  28, 
Mark  ix«  1,  Luke  ix.  27,  John  viii.  52,  Hebrews  ii. 
9."  It  appears  from  this  quotation,  that  *'  the  more 
recent  Htbrcivs,^^  furnished  death  with  an  angel,  the 
prince  of  bad  spirits.  But  the  ancient  Hebrews  knew 
nothing  about  such  a  being;  and  wiiere  could  "the 
more  recent  Hebrews"  imbibe  such  opinions  but  during. 


AN    INC^UIRY PART    I.  145 

t'heir  captivity,  and  from  their  intercourse  with  the  hea- 
then ?  See  Section  iv.  Jahn  allows,  that  "adhering 
too  strictly  to  the  letter  of  their  Scriptures,"  they  "ex- 
ercised their  ingenuity"  to  get  their  Scriptures  to  favor 
such  opinions.  Christians  have  inabibed  the  Jewish 
opinions,  and  have  exercised  Jike  ingenuity  to  find  proof 
for  them  in  the  New  Testament. 

Rev.  ii.  10.  "Fear  none  of  those  things  which 
thou  shalt  suffer:  behold,  the  devil  shall  cast  some  of 
you  into  prison,  that  ye  may  be  tried  ;  and  ye  shall 
liave  tribulation  ten  days  ;  be  thou  faithful  unto  death, 
and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life.^'  It  will  not  be 
questioned,  that  what  John  calls  satan,  verses  9,  13, 
^4,  and  chap.  iii.  9,  he  here  calls  the  devil.  See  re- 
marks on  all  these  pas'^ages,  Section  v.,  which  are  here 
sufficient  for  an  illustration.  Suffer  ine  to  ask,  does 
miy  one  believe  that  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel,  ever  cast 
Christians  into  prison  ?  No ;  but  the  adversaries  of 
Christianity,  then  and  since,  have  often  done  this.  It 
will  not  ariswer  to  say,  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel,  influ- 
enced the  enemies  of  the  gospel  to  cast  Christians  into 
prison,  for  this  is  just  taking  for  granted  the  point  in 
question.  But,  are  our  orthodox  brethren  aware,  that 
their  faith  in  the  devil  influencing  men  to  sin,  militates 
against  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity?  What  need 
is  there  of  such  a  being's  assistance  ?  Total  depravi- 
ty Is  suf6cient  without  him  to  produce  all  manner  of 
wickedness.  If  men  would  be  less  wicked,^ without 
the  devil's  influence,  then  they  are  not  so  bad  but  he 
can  make  them  worse:  and  v/ ho  can  tell  but  they 
might  all  be  very  good  if  he  would  only  let  them 
alone?  Mankind  are  wicked  enough,  but  all  their 
wickedness  arises  from  a  different  source.  "  From 
whence  come  wars  aiad  fightings  ?     Come  they  not 


146  AN    INQUIRY— -PART    1. 

iienceof  your  lusts  which  war  in  your  members  V^  Is 
the  assistance  of  a  fallen  angel  required  to  produce 
them  ?  But  the  reader  may  pursue  these  reflections 
at  his  leisure. 


SECTION  VIL 

ALL  THE   PASSAGES  CONSIDERED,  IN  WHICH  THE  TERMS- 
DEVIL  AND  SATAN  ARE  USED  SYNONYMOUSLY. 

The  first  passages  which  present  themselves  for  ouk 
consideration  are  Matth.  iv.  1 — 12;  Mark  i.  12,  13, 
and  Luke  iv.  1 — 14,  containing  an  account  of  our 
Lord^s  temptation.  The  reader  will  please  turn  to 
them  and  read  them.  Most  religious  people  interpret 
this  account  literally.  But  concerning  a  literal  inter- 
pretation, Essenus  thus  writes,  pp.  117 — 120.  "The 
history  of  our  Lord's  temptation  is  commonly  under- 
stood in  a  literal  sense.  Satan  is  supposed  to  be  a 
real  being  ;  to  have  actually  appeared  and  conversed 
with  our  Saviour.  Having  taken  him  up  through  the 
air  to  the  top  of  the  temple,  and  thence  to  some  high 
mountain,  he  tempted  him  in  the  manner  represented 
in  the  narrative.  This  interpretation  is  loaded  not 
only  with  difficulties,  but  even  with  absurdities  shock- 
ing to  common  sense.  The  learned  Mr.  Farmer  has 
examined  the  question  ;  and  his  objections  to  the  lite- 
ral translation  are  so  numerous  and  decisive,  that  no 
thinking  person  can  accede  to  it,  without  abandoning 
the  first  and  most  obvious  principle  of  reason,  and  the 
tenor  of  the  gospel.  '  Why  the  devil  at  all  assaulted 
our  Lord,  and  what  advantage  he  could  possibly  gain 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  147 

over  him,  has,  he  observes,  always  been  acknow- 
ledged to  be  a  great  difficulty,  by  the  advocates  of 
the  common  interpretation.'  But  this  difficulty  is  in- 
creased by  the  manner  the  devil  proposed  his  tempta- 
tion to  our  Lord.  For  lie  came  to  him  in  person,  and 
urges  temptations  such  as  could  proceed  only  from  an 
evil  being.  Now  with  what  prospect  of  success  could 
he  tempt  our  Lord,  if  he  thus  exposed  himself  to  open 
view?  By  a  personal  and  undisguised  appearance,  he 
can  never  hope  to  prevail  over  the  feeblest  virtues, 
much  less  could  he  expect  the  illustrious  person, 
whom  he  knew  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  who  knew 
him  to  be  the  devil,  to  comply  with  his  temptations. 

"  In  the  first  temptation,  in  which  Jesus  is  solicited 
to  turn  stones  into  bread,  nothing  is  promised  on  the 
part  of  satan  to  gain  his  consent ;  the  request  of  an 
implacable  enemy,  when  no  advantage  attends  it,  be- 
ing in  itself  a  reason  for  rejecting  it.  But  satan  de- 
feats his  own  temptation  by  asking  an  useless  favor. 

"  While  the  foe  betrays  great  folly  in  the  first  temp- 
tation, he  supposes  Christ  to  be  actuated  by  still  great- 
er in  the  second.  The  people,  on  seeing  Jesus  throw- 
ing himself  from  the  top  of  the  temple,  might  conclude 
that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  But  he  knew  that  the 
tempter  had  it  in  his  power  to  lead  them  to  draw  the 
same  conclusion  of  himself.  Satan  also  would  throw 
himself  down  unhurt ;  and  his  miraculous  preservation 
would  prove  him,  as  well  as  Jesus,  to  be  the  Son  of 
God.  Nay,  he  might  claim  the  superiority  ;  for  it  was 
a  greater  exertion  of  power  to  convey  him  from  the 
wilderness  to  the  top  of  the  temple,  than  in  sustaining 
his  fall  to  the  court  below.  What  inducement,  then, 
could  Christ  have  for  a  compliance  with  the  proposal 
suggested  ?  Would  he  be  disposed  to  gratify  satan, 
by  doing  an  act  at  his  mere  suggestion  ?      Was  he  to 


148  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

acquire  any  glory,  or  advantage  to  himself?  No;  on 
the  contrary,  he  would  only  have  incurred  the  infamy 
of  havino:  entered  the  lists  with  the  devil,  without  hav- 
ing acquired  any  superiority  over  him. 

"With  regard  to  the  third  temptation,  the  Son  of 
God  knew  that  the  father  of  lies  had  not  the  empire 
of  the  world  at  his  disposal,  and  that  he  therefore 
promised  what  he  had  not  power  to  perform.  Such 
a  promise  was  rather  an  insult  than  a  temptation,  and 
was  calculated  only  to  provoke  scorn  or  resentment. 
Could  the  devil  then  hope  hy  such  contemptuous 
treatment,  to  engage  the  Son  of  God  to  listen  to  his 
accursed  counsels  ;  and  to  seduce  him  to  an  act  of  the 
highest  dishonor  to  his  heavenly  Father,  that  of  pay- 
ing divine  homage  to  this  infernal  spirit  ?  This  inter- 
pretation represents  the  old  serpent  as  acting  quite  out 
of  character,  and  supposes  him  to  be  as  void  of  policy 
as  he  is  of  goodness  ;  inasmuch  as  he  used  the  least 
art  in  proposing  temptations,  where  the  greatest  would 
have  been  insufficient  to  insure  success. 

"  The  common  opinion  further  ascribes  to  satan  the 
greatest  miracles.  It  supposes  that  the  devil,  by  na- 
ture a  spiritual  and  invisible  agent,  has  a  power  of  as- 
suming at  pleasure  a  corporeal  or  invisible  form,  and 
of  speaking  with  an  audible  voice  ;  though  there  is  no 
more  ground  from  experience,  (our  sole  instructor  in 
the  established  law  of  nature,)  to  ascribe  this  power 
to  the  devil,  than  to  ascribe  life  to  the  inanimate,  or 
speech  to  the  brute  creation. 

"  It  is  a  still  greater  objection  to  the  common  opin- 
ion, that  it  ascribes  to  the  devil  tlie  performance  of 
things,  not  only  preternatural,  but  absurb  and  in)possi- 
ble.  Such  we  must  reckon,  his  showing  Christ  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  from  an  exceedingly  high  moun- 
tain ;  for  the  earth  being  a  spheroidical  figure,  what 


AN    INQ^UIRY PART  . I.  149 

single  mountain  can  command  a  view  of  all  the  parts 
of  it,  or  those  in  particular  which  are  opposite  to  each 
other  ?  The  sun  itself,  at  its  immense  height  above 
the  lofliest  mountains  of  our  globe,  commands  and  en- 
lightens, at  once,  only  a  single  hemisphere.  Could 
the  devil,  then,  from  one  point  of  view,  show  Christ 
not  only  the  entire  circumference  of  the  globe,  but 
also  whatever  constitutes  the  glory  and  grandeur  of  its 
kingdoms  ;  and  show  him  such  infinitely  numerous  ob- 
jects, in  situations  so  distant  and  so  opposite,  not  gradu- 
ally and  successively,  but  in  one  and  the  same  instant 
of  time  ?  This  does  not  seem  so  properly  a  miracle, 
as  an  absurdity  and  contradiction." 

The  question  will  now  be  asked — If  our  Lord  was 
not  literally  tempted  of  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel,  how 
is  this  account  to  be  understood  ?  Before  directly  an- 
swering this  question,  w^e  shall  make  some  general  re- 
marks on  it,  in  connexion  with  its  context.  The  fol- 
lowing things  then  appear  obvious  : — It  is  evident, 
that  our  Lord's  temptation  took  place  immediately  af- 
ter the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  him,  and  just 
before  he  entered  on  his  public  ministry.  His  temp- 
tation was  passing  trial  for  the  work  given  him  to  do, 
and  in  which  he  was  about  to  engage.  Again  ;  it  is 
equally  obvious,  that  the  tempter  did  not  lead  our 
Lord  out  into  the  wilderness  for  the  purpose  of  tempt- 
ing him,  but  on  the  contrary,  he  was  led  out  there  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  to  be  tempted  of  the  de\nl.  See 
Matth.  iii.  16;  iv.  1,  and  Luke  iv.  1,  compared  with 
verse  14.  Again  ;  all  will  allow,  that  "  devil,  satan," 
and  "  the  tempter,"  are  used  as  synonymous  terms. 
Nor  is  it  less  apparent,  that  our  Lord's  temptation  is 
related  by  all  the  three  historians,  without  any  suspi* 
cion  on  their  part  that  it  was  to  be  misunderstood. — 
They  use  the  terms  devil,  wilderness,  satan,  Spirit  of 


150  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

God,  and  tempter,  as  what  would  be  alike  easily  un- 
derstood by  their  readers.  But  again  ;  it  is  taken  for 
granted  in  this  account,  and  is  plain  from  many  other 
parts  of  Scripture,  that  our  Lord  was  susceptible  ol 
temptation.  To  deny  this,  is  to  say  Jesus  was  not  a 
partaker  in  flesh  and  blood  with  the  children,  Heb.  ii. 
14,  that  he  was  not  tempted,  for  without  such  things 
we  may  as  well  speak  of  tempting  a  tree  or  a  stone. 
But  he  sutfered  being  tempted,  and  is  able  to  succour 
them  that  are  tempted,  Heb.  ii.  15.  He  was  hungry, 
and  thirsty,  and  weary,  as  we  are  :  he  was  sorrowful, 
and  joyful,  felt  pain  and  enjoyed  ease.  In  short,  he 
was  pleased  and  angry,  Mark  iii.  5,  was  grateful  for 
kindness,  and  felt  an  insult,  as  could  be  shown,  if  it 
were  necessary.  Many  good  people  seem  to  forget, 
that  sin  does  not  consist  in  having  such  appetites  and 
passions,  hut  in  their  indulgence  in  a  way  and  to  an 
extent,  which  God  has  prohibited.  They  only  render 
their  possessor  susceptible  of  sinning.  Jesus  was  in 
all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin. — 
Heb.  iv.  16.  I  may  just  add,  that  ilie  tempter,  here 
mentioned,  like  the  tempter  which  deceived  Eve,  pro- 
fessed to  be  our  Lord's  friend,  and  that  listening  to 
the  proposals  made  would  be  for  his  advantage.  This 
is  apparent  from  comparing  the  two  accounts.  With 
these  general  remarks  in  view,  let  us  attend  to  the 

1st.  Temptation  of  our  Lord.  "  And  when  he  had 
fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  he  was  afterwards 
an  hungered.  And  when  the  tempter  came  to  him, 
he  said,  if  thou  art  the  Son  of  God  command  that 
these  stones  be  made  bread."  To  fast,  in  Scripture 
language,  does  not  always  mean  total  abstinence  from 
food  during  t!ie  period  persons  are  said  to  fast,  but 
using  a  less  quantity,  and  coarser  kind  of  food.  See 
the  book  of  Daniel,  and  other  passages.     When  it  is 


AN    IN<iUIRY PART    I.  151 

said,  Luke  iv.  2,  that  our  Lord  •■'  did  eat  nothing^'' 
during  forty  days,  seems,  from  comparing  Acts  xxvii. 
33,  to  mean  nothing  more  than  that  he  had  no  regular 
meals.  Without  a  miracle,  he  could  not  have  lived 
forty  days  entirely  without  food,  and  no  miracle  is 
supposed  to  have  been  wrought  to  sustain  him.  Nor 
is  it  easily  perceived,  why  it  would  have  been  sin  to 
turn  stones  to  bread,  yet  no  sin  to  work  a  miracle  to 
support  nature  without  food.  Our  Lord  might  have 
been  said  to  have  fasted  forty  days,  by  eating  only  of 
such  food  as  was  furnished  hini  by  the  fields.  It  is 
evident  that  his  fasting  gave  rise  to  the  first  tempta- 
tion. What  tempter  came  to  him  ?  What  other  but 
his  hunger  1  No  other  tempter  in  this  case  was  ne- 
cessary. Unless  our  Lord  was  sustained  by  a  mira- 
cle, he  must  have  felt  the  sensations  of  hunger  before 
they  were  ended,  but  it  was  not  until  then  that  his  ap- 
petite became  claniorous  for  food,  and  tempted  him. 
by  suggesting  "  command  that  these  stones  he  made 
breads  What  said  this?  Was  it  not  the  craving  of 
his  bodily  appetite  for  food?  It  suggested  a  miracle 
to  be  wrought.  It  has  suggested  to  many  since,  to 
steal  to  satisfy  its  cravings,  and  God,  who  remembers 
that  we  are  dust,  has  sometimes  interposed  by  miracle 
to  satisfy  it.  Even  "  men  do  not  despise  a  thief,  if 
he  steal  to  satisfy  his  soul  w^ien  he  is  hungry."  Prov. 
vi.  30.  Comp.  verse  3L  There  are  some  points  of 
similarity,  and  dissimilarity,  between  Eve's  temptation 
and  that  of  our  Lord's,  which  deserve  to  be  noticed. 
For  example  ;  bodily  appetite  was.  the  tempter  in  both 
cases,  and  in  both  a  dialogue  between  them  and  their 
appetite  is  represented  as  having  taken  pLice.  But 
notice,  when  Eve  lusted  after  the  fruit,  she  had  all  the 
other  trees  from  which  to  supply  her  necessities.  Her 
appetite  did  not  become  a  tempter  to  her  from  want, 


152  A.N    INQ,UIRY PART    I. 

but  took  occasion  from  the  restraint  which  God  had 
laid  on  it,  in  prohibiting  the  use  of  one  tree  of  the 
garden.  She  hstened  to  the  voice  of  her  appetite  and 
sinned.  But  our  Lord's  appetite  became  a  tempter  to 
him  from  want  of  food,  and  attempted  to  seduce  him 
to  work  a  miracle  for  a  supply.  But  he  repelled  the 
temptation  by  saying,  verse  4,  "It  is  written,  man 
shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that 
proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God."  It  was  no  sin 
in  Eve  or  our  Lord  to  have  the  appetite,  or  to  gratify 
it.  It  became  sin  in  Eve  to  gratify  her  appetite  from 
that  which  God  had  prohibited.  It  would  have  been 
sin  in  Jesus,  to  have  wrought  a  miracle  to  gratify  his 
appetite,  for  his  divine  power  was  not  given  him  for 
this  purpose,  but  to  establish  his  mission  as  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  World.  To  hav-e  complied  with  the 
temptation  would  have  shown  his  want  of  trust  in 
God,  and  been  an  improper  exeicise  of  his  power  for 
his  own  personal  gratification.  To  say  that  our  Lord 
was  hungry,  yet  felt  no  inclination  to  enjoy  food,  is  in 
other  words  telling  us  tliat  he  was  not  hungry,  and  de- 
nying that  this  was  any  temptation.  But  feeling  all 
the  painful  sensations  of  hunger,  and  having  power  to 
turn  stones  to  bread,  yet  resisting  the  suggestion,  could 
only  be  done  by  him  who  was  manifested  to  destroy 
the  works  of  the  devil,  or  evil  desire. 

2d.  Our  Lord's  second  temptation  is  related  verse 
5 — 8.  "  Then  the  devil  taketh  him  up  into  the  holy 
city,  and  setteth  him  on  a  pinnacle  of  tlie  temple,  and 
saith  unto  him,  if  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  cast  thyself 
down  :  for  it  is  written,  he  shall  give  his  angels  charge 
concerning  thee:  and  in  their  hands  they  shall  bear 
thee  up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a 
stone."  What  tempter  now  assailed  our  Lord  ?  In 
order  to  answer  this  question  several  things  must  be 


AN     IN^Umy PART    1.  153 

noticed.  The  scene  of  this  temptation  is  not  laid  in 
the  wilderness,  but  in  Jerusalem,  and  at  the  temple, 
where  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  assembled  to  worship. — ■ 
Further,  the  Jews  at  that  time  were  not  only  in  high 
expectation  of  Messiah's  appearance,  but  they  expect- 
ed him  to  come  in  a  miraculous  way  for  their  deliv- 
erance and  glory.  The  scene  is  laid  at  the  place  suited 
to  the  nature  of  the  temptation.  On  the  other  hand, 
our  Lord  was  just  about  to  enter  on  the  work  given  him 
to  do.  Unless  we  say  that  he  was  ignorant  and  stoical^ 
we  must  allow  him  to  feel  sensibly,  in  view  of  the  suf- 
ferings which  awaited  him.  In  fact,  if  we  admit  that 
he  foresaw  what  afterwards  took  place,  and  was  not 
deeply  affected  by  the  prospect,  yea,  wished  if  possible 
to  avoid  it,  we  must  believe  him  destitute  of  the  com- 
mon feelings  and  sinless  frailties  of  ournature.  If  after 
he  had  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suf- 
fered, he  said,  "  Father  let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  can 
any  man  think,  that  nature  would  not  say  the  same, 
yea,  suggest  some  mode  of  escaping  them,  when  he  sur- 
veyed the  whole  scene  of  suffering  at  the  commence- 
ment ?  To  deny  this,  is  to  deny  that  our  Lord  was  a 
man,  and  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief. 
Yea,  to  deny  that  our  Lord  possessed  the  fine  feelings 
and  tender  sensibihties  which  so  conspicuously  shown 
in  him.  It  is  in  fact  saying,  our  Lord  was  totally  un- 
concerned about  the  success  of  his  future  ministry 
among  the  Jews,  that  he  had  no  desire  that  they  should 
receive  him  as  the  true  Messiah,  and  that  no  reflections 
passed  through  his  mind  respecting  the  best  manner  in 
which  he  might  gain  the  attention  and  affections  of  his 
nation.  What  then  was  the  tempter?  It  v^^ as  flesh 
and  blood  suggesting  the  propriety  of  accommodating 
himself  to  the  prevailing  opinions  and  expectations  of 
the  Jews  to  secure  his  success :  or,  their  prevailing  ex- 


154  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    1 

pectations  and  opinions,  presented  themselves  to  his 
mind,  pointed  out  a  course,  which,  if  pursued,  he  would 
avoid  all  opposition  from  them,  and  be  received  as  their 
Messiah.  What  was  this  ?  The  Jews  expected  their 
Messiah  to  come  from  heaven,  or  in  a  miraculous  man- 
ner among  them.  This  is  generally  admitted.  It  was 
suggested,  cast  thyself  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the 
temple  among  them,  while  at  worship  in  the  court  be- 
low ;  seeing  you  fall  from  such  a  stupendous  height  un- 
hurt, they  will  immediately  receive  you  as  the  Messiah, 
and  invest  you  with  all  the  honors,  powers,  and  emolu- 
ments of  the  Jewish  church.  If,  or  rather,  since  thou 
art  the  son  of  God,  there  can  be  no  danger,  "  for  it  is 
written,  He  shall  give  his  angels  charge  concerning 
thee;  and  in  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up.  lest 
at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone."  But 
our  Lord  did  not  listen  to  flesh  and  blood,  reasoning  on 
the  principles  of  accommodation,  but  repelled  the  temp- 
tation by  saying — "it  is  written,  again,  thou  shalt  not 
tempt  the  Lord  thy  God."  A  compliance  with  it  would 
have  been  presumption,  a  perversion  of  Scripture  in 
justification  of  it,  and  doing  evil  that  good  might  come. 
It  would  have  been  sacrificing  truth  at  the  shrine  of 
prejudice  and  popular  opinion,  and  shrinking  from  trials 
and  sufferings  through  which  he  must  pass,  if  he  would 
accomplish  the  end  of  his  mission.  It  behoved  Christ 
to  suffer,  Luke  xxiv.  46. 

3d.  The  third  temptation  is  staled  in  verses  8,  9. — 
*'  Again  the  devil  taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding  high 
mountain,  and  showeth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  and  the  glory  of*  them  ;  and  saith  unto  him,  all 
these  things  will  I  give  thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and 
worship  me."  What  devil  now  tempted  our  Lord  ?  It 
■  was  certainly  that  which  said  to  him,  if  thou  wilt  fall 
down  and  worship  me ;  and  which  said,  Luke  iv.  6. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  155 

"  All  this  power  will  I  give  thee,  and  the  glory  of  them  : 
for  that  is  delivered  unto  me,  and  to  whomsoever  I 
will  I  give  it.  If  thou  therefore  wilt  worsfiip  me,  all 
shall  be  thine."  Well,  allow  me  to  ask,  had  a  fallen 
angel  all  these  things  at  his  disposal?  Could  he  con- 
fer all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the  glory  of  them  ? 
No  man  will  say  so  :  nor  does  our  Lord  call  him  a  liar 
or  deceiver,  in  promising  such  things.  What  then 
promised,  and  could  confer  all  these  things  on  our 
Lord  ?  I  answer  ;  in  the  days  of  our  Lord  the  power 
of  the  Romans  had  subdued  all  the  then  known  world. 
To  whomsoever  they  would  they  gave  its  kingdoms  and 
the  glory  of  them.  This  was  done  by  the  force  of  arms. 
If  our  Lord  would  then  make  his  extraordinary  power 
the  means  of  propagating  his  kingdom,  he  niight  raise 
himself  to  the  head  of  the  Roman  Empire,  or  become 
master  of  the  whole  world.  The  tempter  was  then,  the 
glory  and  grandeur  of  the  world  presented  to  the  Sa- 
viour's mind,  to  excite  his  ambition  to  use  his  power  in 
raising  himself  to  universal  empire.  But  this  tempta- 
tion he  repelled  by  saying — "  get  thee  hence  satan  (or 
adversary)  for  it  is  written,  thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord 
thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  It  is  addexl, 
that  satan  departed  from  him  for  a  season,  which  inti- 
mates that  our  Lord  was  assailed  with  similar  tempta- 
tions afterwards.  But  was  he  ever  tempted  afterwards 
by  a  fallen  angel  or  evil  spirit  ?  Nothing  of  the  kind 
appears,  but  he  was  certainly  tempted  afterwards  with 
like  ten^ptations  to  those  I  have  mentioned.  In  short, 
these  three  temptations  are,  for  substance,  all  the  va- 
rious temptations  with  which  our  Lord  was  assailed  du- 
ring his  ministry.  Indeed,  they  comprise  all  that  is  in 
the  world,  which  prove  tempters  to  mankind,  "  The 
lust  of  the  flesh,  and  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride 
of  life,"  1  John  ii.  16.     Was  not  our  Lord,  during  his 


156  AM    INquiUy— PART    1. 

ministry,  repeatedly  hungry,  and  under  temptation  to 
supply  his  wants  by  his  divine  power?  Certainly  he 
was,  but  we  find  he  always  resisted  such  a  temptation, 
and  trusted  in  God  for  food,  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
Providence.  Again,  was  he  not  under  strong  tempta- 
tions to  sacrifice  truth  and  duty  to  the  prejudices  and 
opinions  of  the  Jews,  in  order  to  his  ministry  being 
useful  among  them  ?  No  one  will  deny  this.  But,  do 
we  ever  find  him  making  sinful  compliances  with  them, 
to  induce  them  to  receive  him  as  their  Messiah  ?  No, 
he  was  deaf  to  all  such  temptations  and  allurements. 
Again,  during  his  ministry,  he  had  temptations  present- 
ed to  him  to  raise  himself  to  a  throne,  yea,  to  the  em- 
pire of  tlie  world.  The  people  seeing  his  power,  on 
one  occasion  would  have  come  by  force  to  make  him  a 
kinc^  But.  did  he  encourage  them,  or  avail  himself  of 
this,  to  raise  himself  to  honor  and  glory  ?  All  know, 
the  reverse  of  this  was  the  case.  He  was  likewise  ac- 
cused of  making  himself  a  king.  But  he  repelled  the 
charge  by  savino-  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world. — 
All  these  temptations  our  Lord  encountered  during  his 
ministry,  but  was  more  than  a  match  for  them  all.  He 
suffered  being  tempted,  that  he  might  know  how  to 
succor  them  that  are  tempted,  to  turn  aside  from  truth 
and  dut}^  in  his  service  by  similar  allurements.  But 
alas!  how  many  "  Vicars  of  Bray^^  have  professed  to 
be  his  servants,  who  have  counted  gain  godliness,  and 
sacrificed  ev^y  thing  for  the  honor,  the  power,  and  the 
wealth  of  the  world. 

Sucli  are  my  views  of  our  Lord's  temptation,  but 
my  limits  forbid  entering  more  minutely  into  a  detail 
of  the  evidence  whereby  they  might  be  supported.  It 
is  easily  perceived,  that  these  views  are  in  accordance 
with  the  meaning  of  the  terms  devil  and  satan,  as  used 
in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  and  agree  to  the  tempter 


which  tempts  men  every  day.  But  to  understand  a 
fallen  ano;el  designated  by  these  terms,  is  not  supported 
by  other  parts  of  Scripture,  and  involves  this  account 
in  absurdities  and  utter  impossibilities. 

Mark  iv.  15.  '^  And  these  are  they  by  the  way  sidcj 
where  the  word  is  sown  ;  but  W'hen  they  have  heard, 
satan  cometh  immediately,  and  taketh  aw^ay  the  word 
that  was  sown  in  their  hearts,"  By  comparing  Luke 
viii.  12,  the  devil  is  said  to  do  this,  and  in  Matth.  xiii. 
19,  it  is  said  to  be  done  by  "  the  wicked  one,"  or 
rather  ''  the  wicked,"  for  one  is  in  italic.  What  satan, 
devil,  or  wicked  one,  then  took  away  the  seed  of  the 
word  sown  in  men's  hearts?  It  has  been  shown,  that 
the  terms  devil  and  satan,  are  often  used  to  designate 
the  Jews,  the  adversaries  of  our  Lord  and  his  doctrine. 
That  they  were  wicked  persons  no  one  questions.  It 
is  then  agreeable  to  the  fact,  that  as  soon  as  our  Lord 
sowed  the  good  seed  of  the  word  they  were  ready  to 
prevent  its  salutary  effects  on  the  minds  of  his  hearers, 
by  contradicting  and  blaspheming  it.  Every  scheme 
was  devised  by  them  to  excite  popular  prejudice  against 
our  Lord  and  his  doctrine.  No  assistance  from  a  fallen 
angel  was  needed  in  this  case,  for  we  are  told  such 
hearers  of  the  word  did  not  understand  it.  What  is 
not  understood  and  believed,  is  little  regarded,  soon  for- 
gotten, and  easily  parted  with  ;  and  especially  if  public 
prejudice  be  against  it.  If  we  were  even  to  say,  men's 
evil  lusts  and  passions  were  the  devil  and  satan  that 
took  away  the  seed  of  the  word  from  their  minds,  it 
would  be  in  agreement  with  the  Scripture  usage  of  these 
terms.  How  the  seed  could  be  taken  away  by  means 
of  either  of  these,  is  easily  understood,  but  how  it  could 
be  removed  by  a  fallen  sngel  is  to  me  inexplicable.-— 
Let  it  be  remembered  that  it  is  no  where  said  that  such 
11 


158  AN     1NQ,UIRY PART    I. 

a  being  made  use  of  tliem  as  his  tools  to  accomplish 
this.     See  quotations  fioiii  Jahn,  above. 

Rev.  xii.  9.  "  And  the  great  dragon  was  cast  out, 
that  old  serpent,  called  tbe  devil,  and  satan,  which  de- 
ceiveth  the  wliole  world  :  he  was  cast  out  into  the 
earth,  and  his  angels  were  ca  t  out  with  him."  See 
verses  10,  II,  12,  yea,  the  whole  chapter.  Again,  it 
is  said,  Rev.  xx.  1,  2,  "  And  I  saw  an  angel  come 
down  from  heaven,  havinii  the  key  of  the  bottomless 
pit,  and  a  great  chain  in  his, hand.  And  he  laid  hold 
on  the  dragon,  that  old  serpent,  which  is  the  devil,  and 
satan,  and  bound  him  a  thousand  years."  See  the 
whole  chapter.  In  these  two  passages,  we  have  John's 
authority  for  saying,  that  the  great  dragon,  old  serpent, 
devil,  satan,  and  accuser  of  the  brethren,  all  mean  the 
same  thing.  This  thing,  or  being,  is  also  said  to  de- 
ceive "  the  whole  world.^^  It  is  from  these  tu  o  passa- 
ges chiefly,  that  people  conclude  that  the  serpent  w  hich 
deceived  Eve  was  a  fallen  angel,  for  here,  say  they, 
^*  the  devil  and  satan  is  called  that  old  serpent,  and  we 
know  that  the  devil  is  a  fallen  angel."  And  how  do 
they  know  all  this  so  clearly  and  confidently  ?  Their 
fathers,  their  catechisms,  and  their  ministers  have  told 
them  so  :  and  this  conclusion  is  drawn  too  from  a  book 
so  highly  figurative,  that  no  man  has  hitherto  been  able 
satisfactorily  to  explain  it.  Notwithstanding,  this  is 
frankly  owned  by  every  candid  man,  yet  from  this  v^ery 
book  the  strongest  proofs  are  generally  adduced  for  a 
personal  devil,  and  eternal  punishment.  We  would 
respectfully  ask  our  orthodox  brethren,  why  they  allow 
the  book  of  Revelations  to  be  hii^hly  figurative  or  sym- 
bolical, yet  give  a  literal  interpretation  to  the  above 
passages  concerning  the  serpent,  devil,  and  satan  ?  We 
would  affectionately  press  it  on  their  attention,  why 
they  interpret  the  parts  of  these  passages  concerning 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  159 

the  devil  and  satan  literally,  and  yet  would  refuse  to  go 
through  with  a  literal  interpretation  of  them  ?  I  shall 
give  a  specimen  of  the  absurdities  which  such  a  literal 
interpretation  involves.  It  must  then  be  believed,  that 
the-  devil  has  seven  heads  and  ten  horns,  and  seven 
crowns  on  his  heads.  And  it  must  be  beheved,  that 
Michael  and  his  angels,  had  a  battle  with  the  devil  and 
his  angels,  and  that  it  was  fought  in  heaven.  Besides, 
our  orthodox  friends  ought  to  inform  us,  how  the  devil 
got  back  to  heaven  to  fight  this  battle  there,  seeing  they 
believed  he  fell  from  heaven  before  he  tempted  Eve. 
In  short,  he  has  been  in  heaven  and  fallen  from  it  a 
number  of  times,  if  such  principles  of  Scripture  inter- 
pretation are  admitted.  He  fell  from  heaven  before 
Eve's  temptation.  He  fell  again  when  the  Seventy 
were  out  preaching.  And  John  in  the  above  chapters 
informs  us  that  he  was  cast  out  of  heaven  to  the  earth 
a  third  time.  And  if  Lucifer  be  the  devil,  he  has  at 
least  had  four  falls  from  heaven,  for  it  is  said,  how  art 
thou  fallen  from  heaven,  Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning. 

Is  it  then  asked,  what  this  great  dragon,  that  old  ser- 
pent, the  devil  and  satan  was  ?  Dr.  Newton  says,  vol.  iii. 
135 — 139,  speaking^  of  this  dragon — "We  find  the 
kings  and  people  of  Egypt,  who  were  the  great  perse- 
cutors of  the  primitive  church  of  Israel,  distinguished  by 
this  title  in  several  places  of  the  Old  Testament :  Psalm 
Ixxiv.  13  ;  Isai.  li.  9 :  Ezek.  xxix.  3,  and  with  as  much 
reason  and  propriety  may  the  people  and  emperors  of 
Rome,  who  were  the  great  persecutors  of  the  primitive 
church  of  Christ  be  called  by  the  same  name,  as  they 
are  actuated  by  the  same  principle.  For  that  the  Ro- 
man Empire  was  here  figured,  the  characters  and  attri- 
butes of  the  dragon  plainly  evince."  See  the  pages 
referred  to. 

Such  are  his  remarks  on  the  first  of  these  passages. 


160  AN    INi^UIRY PART    I. 

On  the  second  he  says,  "  After  the  destruction  of  the 
beast  and  of  the  false  prophet,  there  still  remains  '  the 
dragon,'  who  had  delegated  his  power  to  them,  •  that 
old  serpent,  which  is  the  devil  and  satan  :'  hut  he  is 
bound  by  '  an  angel,'  an  especial  minister  of  Provi- 
dence ;  and  the  famous  millennium  commences,  or  the 
reign  of  the  saints  upon  earth  for  a  thousand  years, 
verse  I — 6.  'Binding  him  with  a  great  chain,  casting 
him  into  the  bottomless  pit,  shutting  him  up,  and  set- 
ting a  seal  upon  him,'  are  strong  figures  to  show  the 
strict  and  severe  restraint  which  he  should  be  laid  under, 
'  that  he  might  deceive  the  nations  no  more,'  during  the 
whole  period.  Wickedness  being  restrained,  the  reign 
of  righteousness  succeeds,  and  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice and  judgment  is  given  to  the  saints  of  the  Mo-^t 
High."  p.  205. 

He  adds,  page  215.  "At  the  expiration  of  the  thou- 
sand years,  verses  7 — 10,  the  restraint  shall  be  taken 
off  from  wickedness,  and  for  'a  little  season'  as  it  \va9 
said  before,  verse  3,  ^  satan  shall  be  loosed  out  of  his 
prison,'  and  make  one  effort  more  to  re-establish  his 
kingdom.  As  he  deceived  our  first  parents  in  the 
paradisaical  state,  so  he  shall  have  the  artifice  '  to  de- 
ceive the  nations'  in  this  millennial  kingdom,  to  show 
that  no  slate  or  condition  upon  earth  is  exempted  and 
secured  from  sinning."  I  would  only  add,  that  it  is 
lust  or  evil  desire  "  ivhich  deceiveth  the  ivhole  world,^' 
and  has  been  the  source  of  its  wars  and  bloodshed, 
James  iv.  1-^4.     This  is  the  universal  deceiver. 

We  have  now  finished  our  investigation  of  all  the 
texts  in  the  Bible,  where  the  terms  devil  and  satan  are 
used.  Having  expressed  our  own  views  of  the  differ- 
ent passages,  we  leave  the  candid  reader  to  form  his 
own  opinions,  and  make  his  own  reflections  on  the 
subject. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  161 


SECTION  VIIL 

ALL  THE  TEXTS  CONSIDERED,  WHERE  THE  DEVIL  IS 
SUPPOSED  TO  BE  CALLED  THE  EVIL  ONE,  THE 
TEMPTER,  THE  GREAT  DRAGON,  THE  SERPENT,  AND 
OLD  SERPENT,  THE  PRINCE  OF  THIS  WORLD,  THE 
PRINCE  OF  THE  POWER  OF  THE  AIR,  AND  THE  GOD 
OF  THIS   WORLD. 

These  names.,  given  to  the  devil,  a  supposed  falleo 
angel,  will  require  but  a  brief  consideration,  for  some  of 
them  have  been  introduced  in  the  preceding  sections. 
Indeed^  \(  devil  and  saian  designate  no  such  being  in 
the  Bible,  rt  y.i'il  be  allowed  by  most  people,  that  he  is 
not  to  be  foiand  in  the  Bible.  But  we  shall  not  take 
this  for  granted.     The  devil  is  then 

1st.  Supposed  to  be  called  o^  f oner 02,  the  evil  one, 
or,  the  wicked  one.  This  word  is  rendered  in  the  con>- 
mon  version,  evil,  wicked,  wickedness, 'harjn,  &;c.  The 
sacred  writers  use  it  to  express  evil  or  wickedness  in  a 
variety  of  ways.  Such  as  evilor  unclean  spirits,  Matth. 
xii.  45  ;  Acts  xix.  12,  13,  15,  16;  Luke  vii.  21  ;  viii. 
2,  and  si.  26.  An  evil  or  unclean  spirit  is  the  same 
as  an  evil  or  unclean  demon,  and  have  no  connexion 
with  our  present  subject.  This  word  is  used  to  express 
moral  evil,  Maltii.  v.  37;  1  Thess.  v.  22;  2Thess.  iii. 
o  ;  John  xvii.  15  ;  Physical  evil,  Acts  xxviii.  21  ;  Rev. 
xvi.  2  ;  Matth.  v.  39.  The  day  of  persecution  is 
called  the  evil  day,  Eph.  vi.  13.  The  heart  ofman, 
from  whence  all  evil  proceeds,  is  called  ''an  evil  heart 
of  unbelief/^  Heb.  iii-  12.     Out  of  this  source  proceed 


162  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

evil    thoughts,  Matth.  ix.  4  ;  Luke  xi.  29  ;  James  il. 

4  ;  Malth.  xii.  35  ;  Luke  vi.  45.  Also,  wicked  and 
malicious  words,  3  John  10;  Malth.  v.  1 1  ;  Luke 
vi.  22.  Also,  evil  works  or  deeds,  Matth.  xii.  35  ; 
Mark  vii,  23  ;  Matth.  xv.  19;  Luke  vi.  45;  John  iii. 
19,  and  vii.  7  ;  James  iv.  16  ;  Col.  i.  21  ;  2  John 
11  ;  Acts  xxviii.  21  ;  Rom.  xii.  9;  2  Tim.  iv.  18; 
Luke  iii.  19;  Matth.  vii.  H,  18.  Men  practisini;  wick- 
edness, are  hence  called  evil,  or  wicked  persons,  Matth. 
xii.  39  ;  xvi.  4  ;  vii.  1 1,  and  xii.  34  ;  Luke  xi.  13  ;  2 
Tim.  iii.  13;  Luke  vi.  45;  1  Cor.  v.  13;  Matth.  v. 
45;  xiii.  49,   and  xxii.  10;  Luke   vi.  35  ;   Acts  xvii. 

5  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  2.  Such  wicked  person*;  have  an  evil 
conscience,  Heh.  x.  22.  An  evil  eye,  Malth.  vi.  23, 
and  XX.  15;  Mark  vii.  22;  Luke  xi.  34.  Become 
evil  servants,  in  various  conditions  of  life,  Matth,  xviii. 
32,  and  xxv.  26 ;  Luke  xix.  22.  And  as  evil  or  wick- 
edness prevails,  the  world  or  age  is  said  to  be  evil.  Gal. 
i.  4.  Such  is  a  brief  review  of  all  the  places  wherie 
the  word  poneros  occurs,  except  the  following,  and  are 
the  only  passages,  where  any  one  can  suppose  this 
word  designates  an  evil  being  or  fallen  an^el. 

Matth.  vi,  13.  "  Deliver  us  from  the  evil."  See  also 
Luke  xi.  4,  where  the  same  language  is  used.  Some 
have  said,  this  expression  njeans,  "deliver  us  from  the 
evil  ane,''^  thereby  meaning  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel. — 
But  the  word  one  does  not  occur  in  the  original,  is  not 
even  in  the  common  version,  nor  does  the  scope  of  the 
passage  require  it.  Such  a  mode  of  establishing  this 
doctrine,  does  not  require  a  serious  refutation.  In 
Malth.  xiii.  19,  the  phrase  '■^wicked  one'^  occurs,  but 
the  word  one  is  in  italic,  which  might  be  omitted,  or  the 
word  person,  or  thing,  substituted  in  its  place.  But  as 
it  has  been  shown  in  the  last  section,  that  this  phrase 
is  synonymous  to  devil  and  satan,  and  has  no  reference 


I 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  163 

to  a  fallen  angel,  it  requires  no  fiirther  notice  here. — 
The  same  remarks  apply  to  Matlh.  xiii.  38,  wliich  has 
been  sufficiently  considered  already.  Tlie  expressions 
"  the  tares  are  tlie  children  of  the  wicked,"  and  "  the 
good  seed  are  the  children  of  the  kin_ffdom,"  are  explain- 
ed by  the  quotation  fiom  professor  Stuart  on  John  viii. 
44,  above.  "Children  of  the  wicked  one,"  sinjpiy 
means  "wicked  children,"  or,  "children  of  wicked- 
ness." The  Improved  Version,  in  a  note  on  this  pas- 
sage, says,  "  sons  of  the  evil  one,"  are  wicked  men. — 
Such,  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  called  sons  of  Belial, 
or  worthlessness,  i.  e.  worthless  men,  1  Sam.  ii.  12;  I 
Kinus  xxi.  10.  See  2  Cor.  vi.  15.  In  I  John  ii.  13, 
14,  the  phrase  "  wicked  one,"  is  used  twice.  The  word 
one  is  not  put  in  italic  type,  but  ought  to  have  been, 
for  there  is  no  reason  for  this  alteration.  See  also  Eph. 
vi.  16;  1  John  iii.  12,  and  v.  18,  19,  where  the  wick- 
ed, or  evil  one,  or  thing,  is  also  mentioned.  The  con- 
texts of  these  passages  show,  that  the  word  thing  m\g\\t 
be  substituted  for  the  word  one.  Take  the  last  passage 
for  an  example.  The  wicked  one  or  thing,  which 
toucheth  or  rather  hurteth  not  those  who  are  born  of 
God,  is  that  from  which  they  keep  themselves,  and  this 
is  sin,  for  it  is  said,  "  whosoever  is  born  of  God  sinneth 
not,"  verse  18.  This  is  confirnied  from  verse  l9,  for 
John  adds,  "  we  know  that  we  are  of  God,  and  the 
whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness,  or  sin  ;  or,  simply 
evil.  See,  on  all  these  passages,  our  remarks  on  the 
passages  where  the  devil  and  satan  are  mentioned,  and 
which  are  synonymous  terms  with  evil  or  wicked  one. 
I  shall  only  add  from  Wakefield,  on  Matth.  v.  37. — 
"  The  evil  one.  So  I  render  again,  verse  39,  and  in 
other  places  ;  as  our  translators  rightly  render  below. 
Nearly  in  the  same  manner,  xiii.  19,  and  elsewhere, 
the  wiclced  one.     Whatever  is  calculated  to  seduce  men 


164  AN    INQUIRY PART   J, 

to  sin,  is  represented  by  the  sacred  writers  under  the 
figure  of  a  living  agent,  called  the  evil  one — the  ad- 
versary— the  enemy — the  devil,  and  saton,'^ 

2d.  The  devil  is  also  supposed  to  be  called  ^^  o  pei- 
radzon,  the  tempter."  This  word  is  rendered  to  tempt, 
to  try,  to  prove.  The  following  are  all  the  places  where 
it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  James  i.  13,  14; 
Gal.  vi.  1  ;  Rev.  ii.  10;  Acts  xv.  10;  2  Cor.  xiii.  5; 
1  Cor.  vii.  5;  Heb.  xi.  17  ;  John  vi.  6  ;  1  Thess.  iil. 
5;  Acts  V.  9  ;  Rev.  iii.  10  ;  1  Cor.  x.  13;  Matth.  xxii. 
18 ;  Mark  xii.  15 ;  Luke  xx.  23  ;  Heb.  ii.  18  ;  Mark 
i.  13;  Luke  iv.  2;  Matth.  xvi.  1,  and  xix.  3  ;  Mark 
viii.  11,  and  x.  2;  Luke  xi.  16;  John  viii.  6;  Matth. 
iv,  1,  and  xxii.  35;  Heb.  iv.  15,  We  have  given 
book,  chapter  and  verse,  that  the  reader  may  consult 
the  passages  and  see,  if  in  any  one  of  them,  the  tempter 
mentioned,  refers  to  snch  a  being.  The  following  are 
the  only  places  from  which  such  a  thing  could  be  sup- 
posed. 

Matth.  iv.  3;  Mark  i,  13,  and  Luke  iv,  2,  13,  have 
already  been  noticed  in  considering  our  Lord's  tempta- 
tion and  require  no  further  attention.  If  the  devil  and 
satan  do  not  refer  to  a  fallen  angel,  the  tempter  cannot, 
for  it  is  allowed  these  terms  are  used  as  names  for  the 
same  thing.  In  1  Thess.  iii.  5,  it  is  said,  "For  this 
cause  when  I  could  no  longer  forbear,  I  sent  to  know 
your  faith,  lest  by  some  means  the  tempter  have  tempt- 
ed you  and  our  labor  be  in  vain."  What  tempter  did 
the  apostle  refer  to  ?  Answer,  we  have  seen  from  va- 
rious passages,  that  the  principle  of  evil,  or  sensual  de- 
sire, is  the  tempter,  and  is  called  the  devil  and  satan. 
Indeed,  this  is  the  foundation  of  the  other  senses  in 
which  these  words  are  used.  This  j)rinciple,  operated 
in  every  possible  way,  in  the  opposers  of  Christianity, 
whom  Paul  calls  satan,  chap.  ii.  18,  noticed,  sect.  v. 


AN    INQ.UIRY PART    I.  165 

the  Thessalonians  were  called  to  suffer  persecution  from 
them,  chap.  iii.  3,  4.  They  were  also  liahle  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  the  principle  of  evil  or  sensual  desire. — 
Anxious  for  their  steadfastness  in  tlie  faith,  the  apostle 
expresses  his  fear,  lest  by  some  means  the  tempter  had 
tempted  them,  and  his  labor  prove  vain.  This  view 
is  confirmed,  from  verses  6,  7,  where  we  are  informed 
what  relieved  the  apostle's  anxiety  of  mind.  It  was 
not  that  a  fallen  angel  had  not  succeeded  in  tempting 
them,  but  merely  that  their  faith  and  charity  contin- 
ued. 

3d.  The  devil  is  also  supposed  to  be  called — "  the 
dragon''^  and  "  ^Ae  s^reat  red  dragon,^^  Rev.  chaps, 
xii.  xiii.  xvi,  xx.  But  sufficient  has  been  said  on  these 
passages  in  the  last  section  to  which  we  refer  the 
reader. 

4th.  The  devil  is  also  believed,  to  be  called  "  the 
serpent,"  and  ''  that  old  serpent."  We  have  noticed 
Gen.  iii.  sufficiently  in  Section  ii.  Where  the  phrase, 
"  that  old  serpent"  occurs,  has  also  been  considered, 
Sect.  vii.  The  only  other  text  relative  to  this  subject, 
is  2  Cor.  xi.  3.  "But  I  fear,  lest  by  any  means,  as 
the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtilty,  so  your 
minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  which  is 
in  Christ."  See  some  remarks  on  this  passage.  Sect. 
ii.  What  I  would  observe  further  here  is — 1st,  Had 
Paul  believed,  as  a  great  many  do  now,  lliat  a  fallen 
angel  or  wicked  spirit  beguiled  Eve,  would  he  not  have 
said  so?  Let  any  candid  man  consider,  if  he  would 
merely  say  the  serpent  beguiled  her.  Is  any  account 
given  in  Scripture  of  the  fall  of  such  an  angel  from 
heaven  ?  If  there  be,  we  will  thank  any  man  to  point 
it  out.  Paul  does  not  even  say,  that  "  old  serpent,"  or 
"  that  old  serpent,  the  devil,  and  satan."  This  is  the 
more  remarkable  omission,  as  in  this  very  chapter  he 


166  AN    INQUIRY PART  I. 

speaks  of satan  being  transformed  into  an  angel  ofllgbt, 
2d.  We  allow,  yea,  contend,  that  the  serpent  is  iht^  same 
as  the  devil  and  satan,  and  tliey  are  used  in  Scri|)ture 
as  convertible  terms  to  express  the  same  thing.  As  to 
this  point,  we  ao:ree  perfectly  with  our  orthodox  friends. 
We  only  contend,  that  the  devil  and  satan  is  not  a 
fallen  angel,  or  evil  being,  as  they  suppose.  What 
then  is  the  tempter,  the  devil,  and  sa'an,  of  which  the 
Scriptures  speak  ?  J^mes  says,  "  every  man  is  tempted, 
when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust  and  enticed." 
This  is  the  real  original  serpent,  devil,  or  tempier,  as 
has  been  shown  on  various  texts  in  the  course  of  our 
remarks.  See  Sect.  ii.  f)articularly.  No  man  could 
be  tempted,  unless  he  had  lusts  or  desires.  The  Sa- 
viour was  incapable  of  being  tempted  without  them. 
3d,  Eve  was  beguiled  by  the  serpent,  or  her  desire 
after  what  was  forbidden,  and  the  apostle  was  in  fear 
concerning  the  Corinthians,  lest  by  any  means  their 
minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is 
in  Christ.  He  does  not  intimate  that  he  was  in  fear 
that  a  fallen  angel  would  do  this.  No,  his  fear  was, 
lest  by  any  mentis  this  might  be  done,  and  in  the  course 
of  the  chapter,  he  points  not  to  a  fallen  angel  as  the 
agent,  but  to  false  teachers  who  preached  another  gos- 
pel to  them,  and  whom,  verse  13,  he  calls  ^^  false  apos- 
tles,^^  and  ^^  deceitful  wnrkersy  In  Sect,  ii.  it  has 
been  shown  that  the  serpetfth  the  symbol  of  deceit. 

5th.  The  devil  is  also  supposed  to  be  called  the  prince 
of  this  world  (o'  arhon).  This  word  occurs  in  Luke 
xii.  58  ;  xxiii.  13  ;  Acts  iv.  5  ;  Luke  xxiii.  35  ;  xxiv. 
20  ;  John  vii.  20  ;  Acts  iii.  17  ;  iv.  8,  26  ;  xiii.  27  ; 
Rom.  xiii.  3  ;  Matt.  ix.  23;  John  vii.  48;  Acts  xiv. 
5;  vii.  27,  35  ;  xvi.  19 ;  Acts  xxiii.  5  ;  Matt.  xx.  25  ; 
1  Cor.  ii.  6,  8  ;  Luke  xiv.  1  ;  Matt.  ix.  18  ;  Luke  viii. 
41  ;  xviii.  18;  John  iii.  1  ;  xii.  42.     The  word  in  the 


AN    INQUIRY PART  I.  167 

above  texts  Is  rendered  chief,  ruler,  maf;istrate,  prince, 
&c.  It  is  applied  to  men  as  rulers,  both  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical, and  that  whether  Jewish  or  heathen.  In 
the  followinii  texts,  it  is  rendered  y)rince,  and  refers  to 
the  prince  of  the  demons,  or  as  it  is  rendered  in  our 
version,  devils,  Matt.  ix.  34  ;  xii.  24;  Mark  iii  22; 
Luke  xi.  15.  Beelzebub  was  the  prince  of  the  de- 
mons. But  that  this  heathen  god  had  no  reference  to 
satan  or  the  devil,  see  Dr.  CampbeH's  sixth  Disserta- 
tion. In  Eph.  ii.  2,  this  word  occurs,  and  is  rendered 
prince,  which  will  be  considered  presently.  The  only 
passages,  where  it  is  supposed  a  reference  is  had  to  the 
devil,  ai-e  the  following,  which  I  shall  quote  altogether, 
and  then  submit  some  remarks  on  them  for  considera- 
tion. 

John  xii.  31.  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  w  orld  : 
now  shall  the  prince  (o'  orhon)  of  this  world  be  cast 
out."  And  xiv.  30.  "  Hereafter  1  will  not  talk  much 
with  you  :  for  the  prince  (o'  arhoti)  of  this  world 
Cometh,  and  hath  nothing  in  me."  And  xvi.  8 — 12, 
"  And  when  he  (the  comforter)  is  come,  he  will  re- 
prove the  worid  of  judi^ment,  because  the  prince  (o' 
arhon)  of  this  world  is  judged."  On  these  passages, 
the  principal  question  we  have  to  consider  is,  who,  or 
what  did  our  Lord  refer  to,  by  "  the  prince  of  this 
world  T^  Orthodox  people  say — "  z/te  devil,  a  J  alien 
angeiy  But  that  our  Lord,  by  "  the  prince  of  this 
world"  meant  the  then  reionintj  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
rulers,  I  shall  now  attempt  to  prove. 

1st.  This  view  is  in  agreement  with  the  general, 
yea,  almost  universal  usage  of  the  word  arhon  in  the 
New  Testament.  Let  any  one  turn  to  all  the  above 
texts  and  he  must  be  convinced  of  this  ;  for  this  word 
is  rendered  magistrate,  ruler,  prince,  Sic,  and  applied 
to  the  rulers,  both   civil   and  ecclesiastical,  then   ex- 


168 


AN    INQUIRY PART 


isting  in  Judea.  It  is  not  once  used  in  reference  to  a 
fallen  angel  unless  it  is  proved  from  the  three  texts  just 
quoted* 

2d.  From  the  scope  and  connexion  of  our  Lord's 
discourse,  where  he  speaks  of  the  prince  of  this  world. 
The  iliree  texts  where  this  is  mentioned,  all  occur  in 
discourses  of  our  Lord,  only  related  by  John.  They 
were  spoken  by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples  in  reference 
to,  and  in  view  of,  his  apprehension,  sufferings  and 
death.  The  context  of  tliese  passages  shows  this, 
which  the  reader  is  desired  to  consult.  As  to  the 
first,  consult  verses  27 — 34,  and  it  will  be  seen  that 
our  Lord  was  speaking  in  view  of  the  hour  of  his 
crucifixion.  As  to  the  last  two,  they  occur  in  that 
discourse  delivered  partly  in  the  upper  room  where  he 
had  eaten  the  last  passover,  and  partly  on  the  road 
from  thence  to  the  garden  where  he  was  apprehended. 
In  chap.  xiv.  30,  he  says,  "the  prince  of  this  world 
Cometh,"  and  at  verse  31,  he  adds — ''Rut  that  the 
world  may  know  that  I  love  the  father;  and  as  the 
father  gave  me  commandment,  even  so  1  do.  Arise, 
let  us  go  hence."  Go  where  ?  let  me  ask.  Evidently 
to  the  garden,  where  he  was  a])prehended,  as  is  evi- 
ent  by  reading  on  to  chap,  xviii.  15. 

3d.  The  fact  of  the  case  shows,  that  by  "  the  prince 
of  this  world,"  our  Lord  referred  to  the  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical power,  and  not  to  a  fallen  angel.  Let  any 
one  consult  all  the  future  history  of  our  Lord's  life, 
from  the  lime  he  uttered  these  words,  until  he  died  on 
the  cross,  but  he  finds  nothing  that  looks  like  a  fallen 
angel  or  devil  coming  to  him.  Well,  did  those  pow- 
ers come  to  him?  Nothing  can  be  more  certain. — 
Our  Lord  had  no  sooner  ended  his  discourse,  in  chaps, 
xiv.,  XV.,  xvi.,  xvii.,  than  we  are  told,  chap,  xviii.  L 
"  When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words,  he  went  forth 


AN    INQUIRY— PART    I.  169 

with  bis  disciples  over  the  brook  Cedron,  wbere  was  a 
garden,  into  wbicb  he  entered,  and  bis  disciples." — 
Well,  what  came  to  him  here?  From  verse  3,  and 
onward,  we  are  informed,  that  Jesus  was  apprehended 
by  the  civil  autliority,  urged  on  by  the  ecclesiastical. 
The  prince  of  tbis  world,  or  as  the  word  is  rendered 
in  other  places,  the  ruler  or  mac^istrate  of  this  world 
came.  Our  Lord,  no  doubt,  knew  all  that  Judas,  the 
chief  priests,  and  civil  authorities  were  engaged  in  for 
his  apprehension.  Well,  lie  says,  chap.  xiv.  30, 
"The  prince  of  tbis  world  cometh,"  (erhatai).  To 
testify  to  the  world  his  love  to  the  father,  and  obedi- 
ence to  his  commandment  to  lay  down  his  life,  he 
says  to  his  disciples,  verse  31,  '-Arise,  let  us  go 
hence."  He  proceeds  to  the  garden,  where  he  knew 
Jadas  and  the  officers  were  coming  to  apprehend  him. 
He  foresaw  their  coming,  and  says,  "  the  prince  or 
ruler  of  this  world  cometh,"  and  he  goes  forth  volun- 
rily  to  meet  the  result.  Accordingly  in  chap,  xviii.  3, 
it  is  said,  "  Judas  then  having  received  a  band  of 
men,  and  officers  from  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees, 
cometh  (erhatai)  thither  with  lanterns,  and  torches^ 
and  weapons."  The  chapter  throughout  shows  all 
that  took  place  afterwards,  which  the  reader  would  do 
well  to  consult. 

4th.  The  above  is  confirmed  from  the  words  which 
follow.  He  said  *'  the  prince  of  this  world  cometh," 
and  immediately  adds — "  and  hath  nothing  in  me." — 
This  is  generally  understood,  that  the  devil,  a  fallen 
angel,  had  nothing  of  sin  or  corruption  in  the  Saviour 
whereon  to  work.  But  this  interpretation  is  perfectly 
gratuitous,  for  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  w^as  our 
Lord's  meaning.  But,  on  the  view  which  I  have 
given  of  the  prince  of  this  world,  it  is  consonant  to 
truth;  and  evidence  stated  in  the  context.   Thus,  when 


170  AN    INQUIRY PART   I. 

our  Lord  was  taken  before  Pilate,  and  he  had  exam- 
ined the  case,  what  does  Pilate  say  ?  His  words  are 
remarkable:  ''1  find  in  him  no  fault  at  all,"  chap, 
xviii.  38.  Very  similar  to  those  of  our  Lord  :  "  The 
prince  of  this  world  cometh  and  hath  nothing  in  me," 
or  against  me. 

5th.  My  view  is  also  confirmed  from  the  words 
which  immediately  precede  the  expression — "  the 
prince  of  this  world  cometh."  They  stand  thus — 
''  Hereafter  I  will  not  talk  much  with  you."  Why 
not?  Our  Lord  assigns  as  a  reason  for  his  not  talking 
much  v^ith  his  disciples  afterwards — "for  the  prince  of 
this  world  cometh."  Was  the  devil,  a  fallen  angel, 
to  prevent  his  talking  with  his  disciples?  This  must 
be  affirmed  by  those  who  say  that  he  referred  to  such 
a  being.  But  how  could  he  prevent  his  talking  with 
his  disciples  ?  Let  those  explain  this  who  believe  it. 
It  is  easily  perceived  how  he  was  prevented,  on  my 
views.  The  moment  he  was  apprehended  in  the  gar- 
den, his  disciples  forsook  him  and  fled,  and  from  this 
period,  being  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  he  was 
not  at  liberty  to  talk  much  with  his  disciples,  nor  had 
he  much  opportunity  if  even  liberty  had  been  allowed 
him. 

6th.  The  only  thing  remaining  which  deserves  no- 
tice, is  the  following.  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this 
world  :  now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out." 
The  word  here  rendered  iudi>rnent,  sio^nifies  condemned 
or  condemnation,  and  is  so  rendered  in  other  places. — 
Is  it  asked  how  the  world  were  condemned  ?  They 
were  so,  by  their  rejecting  and  crucifying  Christ,  and 
is  illustrated  by  such  passages  as  John  iii,  18,  19.  Is 
it  asked  how  the  prince  or  powers  of  this  world  were 
cast  out?  By  f)utting  to  death  the  Lord  of  glory,  the 
Jews  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquity,  and  from 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  171 

that  hour  were  cast  out  from  beino;  the  people  of  God, 
and  have  been  so  for  nearly  two  thousand  years. — 
They  were  the  chief  persons  concerned  in  our  Lord's 
crucifixion,  for  the  Roman  power  was  only  called 
in  to  effect  their  purpose.  Pilate  showed  how  unwil- 
lins:  he  was  to  condemn  Jesus  contrary  to  all  law  and 
justice. 

6th.  The  devil  is  al^o  supposed  to  be  called  "  the 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air."  Eph.  ii.  2.  Wake- 
field renders  the  passaiiie  thus — "  conformably  to  the 
ruler  of  this  empire  of  darkness,  the  spirit  that  now 
show^eth  its  power  in  the  sons  of  disobedience."  "  It 
was  tlie  opinion  both  of  the  Jews  and  heatlien,"  says 
Whitby  on  this  text,  "  that  the  air  was  full  of  syirits 
called  demons ;  that  from  the  earth  to  the  firmament, 
all  things  were  full  of  these  companies  or  rulers  ;  and 
that  there  was  a  prince  over  them  who  was  called  the 
governor  of  the  ivorld,  that  is,  of  the  darkness  of  it." 
This  agrees  to  Zoroaster's  angel  of  darkness^  who  was 
considered  the  author  and  director  of  all  evil.  The 
apostle  evidently  here  alludes  to  this  heathen  notion, 
but  he  told  the  Ephesians,  that  tliis  prince  or  governor 
of  the  world,  was  the  spirit  which  wrought  in  the 
children  of  disobedience.  The  evil,  or  wickedness  of 
men's  minds,  is  the  true  devil,  satan,  or  governor  of 
this  world, 

7th.  The  devil  is  also  supposed  to  be  called  "the 
god  of  this  world."  2  Cor.  iv.  4.  "In  whom  the 
god  of  this  world  (aionos)  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
them  that  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious 
gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should 
shiiie  unto  them."  The  god  of  this  world,  mentioned 
here,  is  the  same  as  the  [)rince  or  power  of  the  air,  in 
the  last,  which,  Whitby  says,  they  called  '^governor 
of  this  ivorldj  that  is,  of  the  darkness  of  it."     But  the 


17^  AN    INQUIRY— PART    I. 

aposlle  declares  that  this  governor  of  the  world)  prince 
of  the  power  of  the  air,  or  aod  of  this  world,  was  the 
spirit  that  wrought  in  the  children  of  disobedience.- — 
This  view  is  agreeable  to  the  words  before  us, 
for  this  certainly  blinded  the  minds  of  them  which 
believed  not. 

We  have  now  finished  our  remarks  on  all  the  pas- 
sages which  are  supposed  to  contain  the  names  and 
titles  of  an  evil  being  in  the  universe,  an  angel  who 
fell  from  heaven,  and  deemed  by  most  Christians  but 
little  inferior  in  powers  to  its  Creator.  We  have 
stated  OLir  views  frankly,  but  in  some  cases  very  brief- 
ly. Such  texts  on  which  the  greatest  dependence  is 
placed  for  proof,,  liave  been  considered  pretty  fully. — 
The  result  of  this  investigation  has  been,  a  deep  con- 
viction, that  the  more  the  subject  is  examined,  it  will 
be  found  that  the  Bible  gives  no  countenance  to  that 
evil  being  Christians  call  the  devil  and  satan.  But  of 
this  our  readers  must  judge  fo»'  themselves. 


SECTION  IX. 

FACTS   STATED,   SHOWING   THAT    THE    DEVIL    IS    NOT    A 
FALLEN   ANGEL   OR  REAL  BEING. 

In  the  preceding  Sections,  several  facts  have  been 
developed,  showing  that  the  devil  is  not  a  fallen  an- 
gel. We  shall  now  very  briefly  advert  to  some  other 
facts,  not  easily  reconciled  to  this  doctrine. 

1st.  iS^o  distinct  account  is  given  in  Scripture  of 
an  angel  of  God  sinning  in  hcavcri,  thertby  becoming 


\  AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  173 

a  devil,  and  on  account  of  which  he  was  cast  out  oj 
it.  When  proof  is  demanded  of  such  things,  we  are 
referreil  to  texts  where  satan  or  the  devil  is  said  to 
have  fallen  from  heaven,  and  to  be  cast  out  into  the 
earth.  But  we  have  shown  that  the  sacred  writers  at- 
tached no  such  ideas  to  those  passages,  and  by  quota- 
tions from  Jahn,  Newton,  and  others,  that  a  very  dif- 
ferent thino-  was  intended.  How  then  is  the  fact  ac- 
counted  for,  that  no  sacred  writer  gives  such  an  ac- 
count ?  Is  it  too  much  to  expect,  that  such  a  remark- 
able event  would  be  clearly  and  repeatedly  mentioned, 
yea,  recorded  previous  to  tlie  fall  of  man  ?  If  true, 
would  all  the  sacred  writers  liave  been  silent  about  it 
both  before  and  after  the  fall  ?  This  is  contrary  to 
God's  usual  conduct  with  men.  When  God  was 
about  to  destroy  the  world  by  a  flood,  and  the  cities 
of  the  plain  by  fire,  he  forewarns  the  people  of  their 
danger,  so  as  to  avoid  the  consequences.  But  con- 
cerning a  holy  angel  becoming  a  devil  in  heaven,  his 
fall  from  it,  and  the  direful  consequences  which  re- 
sulted to  our  race,  God  says  nothing  about  such  things. 
The  wane  of  such  information  is  indisputable,  and  we 
think  no  man  will  afSrm,  that  this  is  either  like  God's 
usual  dealings  with  men,  or  that  he  assigns  any  reason 
for  withholding  such  information.  How  then,  do  our 
orthodox  friends  account  for  all  this,  and  v/here  did 
they  obtain  such  explicit  information  as  they  generally 
give  to  people  about  a  fallen  angel,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  his  fall  upon  the  human  race?  Was  it 
from  Paradise  Lost  and  the  Apocrypha,  or  was  it  from 
the  Scriptures  ?  We  beg  of  them  to  re-examine  this 
subject. 

2d.  If  if  be  true  that  an  angel  fell  from  heaven, 
and  has  been  walking  about  in  the  woi'ld  seeking  whom 
he  might  devour,  for  nearly  six  thousand  yearsj  how  ^V 
12 


174  AN    1NQ,UIRY PART    I, 

it  to  be  accounted  for,  that  no  sacred  writer  asserts 
that  any  person  ever  saiv  him,  or  had  personal  inter- 
course with  him?  They  repeatedly  inform  us  of  per- 
sons seeinf^  good  angels,  and  relate  the  conversations 
which  men  had  with  them.  They  even  inform  iis  of 
their  appearance,  and  sometimes  describe  their  cloth- 
ing. But  do  they  ever  intimate,  that  any  one  ever 
saw  the  devil,  describe  his  appearance  and  clothing, 
or  relate  any  conversations  held  with  him  ?  It  cannot 
be  for  want  of  powers  on  his  part  to  do  all  this,  for 
our  brethren  believe  that  he  can  do  more  remarkable 
things  than  any  of  these.  Is  he  ashamed  to  show 
himself  among  men?  We  doubt  this,  for  he  is  believ- 
ed to  be  a  shameless  being.  Well,  does  he  conceal 
himself  from  men,  that  he  may  the  more  effectually 
accomplish  his  wicked  designs  against  them  ?  We 
doubt  this,  also,  for  it  is  affirmed  by  his  advocates,  that 
he  can  assume  a  very  fascinating  form,  yea,  transform 
himself  into  an  angel  of  light,  the  more  effectually  to 
deceive  us.  How  then  do  our  orthodox  brethren  ac- 
count for  it,  that  so  sacred  writer  says  any  one  ever 
saw  tlie  devil,  or  conversed  with  him  ?  W^e  are 
aware,  that  they  may  object  by  saying  "  did  he  not 
assume  the  likeness  of  a  serpent  in  Eden,  and  did  he 
not  converse  with  Eve?"  But  brethren,  we  have 
shown,  Section  ii.,that  this  is  a  mistaken  view  of  Gen. 
iii.  You  will,  perhaps,  object  again  by  saying,  ''did 
not  satan  make  a  personal  appearance  among  the  sons 
of  God,  as  stated  in  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Job,  and  is  not  his  conversation  distinctly  related?" — 
We  answer,  yes  ;  but  can  you  disprove  the  evidence 
which  has  been  adduced,  that  satan  was  not  a  real  be- 
ing, but  only  the  evil  imaginary  god  of  the  Magians? 
If  you  can,  we  shall  feel  greatly  indebted  to  you,  if 
you  take  the  trouble  to  do  this.     But  perhaps  you  will 


AN     INQUIRY PART    I.  175 

object  again,  by  saying,  '^  did  not  the  devil  appear  to 
the  Saviour  and  hold  a  conversation  with  him?"  An- 
swer: did  you  ever  notice,  that  neither  in  the  first 
two  chapters  of  Job,  nor  in  the  account  of  our  Lord's 
temptation,  nothing  is  said  about  any  form,  color,  or 
shape,  which  satan  assumed?  Nor  in  either  of  these 
cases,  are  the  conversations  represented  as  held  by  him 
with  sinful  men.  Besides,  in  considering  those  ac- 
counts, we  think  it  has  been  shown  that  no  such  being 
was  intended  by  the  writers.  Do  you  object  further, 
by  saying,  "  are  we  not  told  that  satan  transformed 
himself  into  an  angel  of  light,  and  is  he  not  represent- 
ed in  the  book  of  Revelations  under  the  form  of  a 
great  red  dragon?"  Yes  ;  and  you  might  add,  ''hav- 
ing seven  heads,  and  ten  horns,  and  crowns  on  bis 
heads  ;  yea,  as  having  a  pretty  long  tail,  which  could 
sweep  from  the  firmament  a  third  part  of  the  stars  and 
cast  them  to  the  earth."  But  brethren,  is  it  correct  to 
assume  as  true,  that  the  devil  is  a  fallen  angel,  and 
then  recur  to  the  symbolical  language  of  Scripture  for 
proof,  which  proofs,  when  adduced,  render  your  doc- 
trine ridiculous  ?  Besides,  have  we  not  shown  that 
such  passages  have  no  relation  to  such  a  subject  ?  Is 
it  still  objected  "  does  not  the  history  of  the  world, 
since  revelation  was  completed,  furnish  accounts  of  the 
devil  appearing  to  men  in  various  forms,  conversing 
with  them  '^  of  persons  who  have  sold  themselves,  soul 
and  body,  to  him,  and  at  the,  agreed  time  he  has  come 
and  carried  them  away,  wholesale  from  the  world  ?" 
Yes  ;  verily  such  stories  have  been  told.  But  if  any 
minister  among  us  should  preach  such  nonsense  to  the 
people,  he  might  be  looking  out  for  another  parish,  in 
some  other  quarter  of  the  globe.  If  any  man  among 
us  should  seriously  say  he  had  seen  the  devil,  and 
conversed  with  him,  his  friends  would  soon  procure 


176 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 


a  place  for  liini  in  the  insane  hospital.  Do  our  ortho- 
dox friends  believe  such  childish  stoiies  themselves  ? 
They  would  su)ile  at  me  if  I  even  siis!;i,fested  that  they 
had  any  faith  in  them;  still,  however,  they  continue 
to  preach  that  an  ancjel  fell  from  heaven,  has  ruined 
the  whole  human  race,  deceives  them,  walks  about 
seeking  whom  he  may  devour,  and  that  he  will  be  the 
eternal  tormentor  of  a  considerable  poition  of  them. 
Yet  no  person  has  ever  seen  him  or  conversed  with 
him,  nor  do  the  Scriptures  teach  his  existence,  when 
carefully  and  candidly  examined. 

3d.  //  an  angel  fell  from  heaven  before  the  sin  of 
our  first  parents,  hoiv  do  our  orthodox  brethren  ac- 
count for  the  fact,  that  the  Jews,  to  wh  m  were  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God,  were  obliged  to  go  to  Baby- 
lon to  s^et  information  about  him  ?  Moses  says  no- 
thing about  him  ;  nor  delivers  any  injunctions  to  Israel 
concerning  him.  Nor,  until  after  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity, does  it  appear  that  such  a  being  was  known  in 
Judea,  except  as  an  evil  g(>d  among  t[]e  fieathen  na- 
tions. We  would  ask  our  brethren,  affectionately, 
how  they  account  for  this,  if  their  views  of  the  devil 
are  drawn  from  divine  revelatiorj  ?  The  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  use  the  K^im  satan,  but  never  u^e  it  to 
designate  an  angel  who  fell  from  heaven.  They  had 
the  name,  but  wanted  the  evil  being  to  whom  they 
could  apply  it. 

4th.  It  is  a  jwtnrious  fact,  r,ot  easily  accounted  for 
on  Scripture  ground,  that  people  in  these  days  make 
very  different  uses  of  the  terms  devil  and  sat  an  from 
what  ivere  made  in  the  days  of  the  inspired  writers. 
I  shall  give  an  example  or  two  of  what  1  mean.  First, 
you  never  find  in  those  days,  as  in  thefe,  persons  apolo- 
gising for  crimes  by  blaming  the  devil.  Nor  do  you 
find  that  any  one  ever  made  the  devil  a   bugbear  for 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  177 

the  purpose  of  friuhtening  tlieir  children  into  obedi- 
ence. iXor  does  the  devil  appear  to  have  been  any 
object  of  fear,  to  old  or  young,  by  night  or  by  day. — 
Besides,  though  men  in  ancient  times,  as  in  these,  were 
given  to  cursing  and  swearing,  yet  you  do  not  find  that 
any  of  them  had  learned  to  swear  by  the  devil.  An 
instance  is  not  on  record,  of  one  in  a  passion  or  other- 
wise, who  ever  wished  any  of  his  fellow  creatures  to 
go  to  hell  or  the  devil.  In  old  times,  people  swore 
by  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  cursed  each  other  by 
their  gods,  but  no  one  seems  to  have  known  how  to 
swear  by  satan  or  the  devil.  And  it  is  equally  certain, 
that  no  inspired  writer  seems  to  have  knovvn  how  to 
give  such  horrible  descriptions  of  the  devil  and  hell 
torments,  as  is  frequently  done  by  modern  preachers. 
But  it  is  well  known,  that  many  damn  their  hearers  to 
endless  hell  toiments,  and  send  them  without  much 
ceremony  to  the  devil  ;  and  is  it  any  matter  of  sur- 
prise, that  their  hearers  in  a  less  genteel  way  should 
do  the  same  ?  So  long  as  we  have  so  much  unscrip- 
tural,  not  to  say  profane  talk  about  the  devil  and  hell 
toriKcnts  in  the  pulpit,  let  us  cease  to  wonder  that 
similar  ))rofane,  silly  language  should  salute  our  ears  in 
the  streets  almost  at  every  corner. 

5th.  The  Old  Testament  is  often  quoted  in  the  New, 
and  quoted  to  show  what  was  the  faith  of  believers 
during  that  dispensation.,  but  is  never  quoted  or  allu- 
ded to,  shounng  that  any  of  them  believed  the  devil  to 
he  a  fdlen  angel.  They  neither  announce  this  as  an 
Old  Testament  doctrine,  nor  as  a  new  revelation  from 
God  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  accounted  unto  him  for  righte- 
ousness, but  it  is  not  said  of  any  one  that  he  believed 
in  a  fallen  angel,  called  the  devil;  and  that  this  was 
of  use  to  him  in  any  way.     We  have  seen,  that  both 


178  AN    INQ,UIRT PART    I. 

Old  and  New  Testament  writers  frequently  speak  of 
satan  and  the  devil,  and  we  appeal  to  the  candor  of 
our  brethren  to  say,  whether  the  Scripture  writers 
would  have  applied  these  terms  to  good  and  bad  men, 
to  the  angel  of  Jehovah,  to  men's  evil  passions,  and  to 
a  piece  of  writing,  had  they  considered  them  appropri- 
ate titles  of  the  worst  being  in  the  universe,  and  the 
implacable  enemy  of  God  and  man  ? 

6th.  It  is  a  fact,  that  in  every  country  where  the 
Bible  is  not  Tcnoum,  or  not  studied  ivhere  it  is 
'known,  there  superstitious  notions  have  prevailed 
concerning  witches,  evil  spirits,  ghosts,  and  the 
devil  :  and  just  in  proportion  as  it  has  been  Jcnoivn 
and  studied  all  such  superstitions  have  gradually 
been  exploded  and  renounced  by  the  people.  For  ex- 
ample, not  many  centuries  ago,  it  was  firmly  beheved 
by  all  the  Christian  world,  that  human  beings  could 
become  witches  and  wizards.  It  was  also  believed, 
that  they  were  in  league  with  the  devil,  and  could 
perform  very  extraordinary  things.  See  blather's 
Magnalia.  When  the  tragical  scenes  of  the  Salem 
witchcraft  were  acting,  the  man  who  would  have  writ- 
ten against  it,  as  I  do  now  against  the  devil,  would 
have  been  an  object  of  universal  execration.  But  I 
doubt  if  you  can  find  in  the  town  of  Salem  an  intelli- 
gent man  who  has  the  least  faith  in  the  doctrine  of 
witchcraft.  Even  the  devil  himself  now,  with  all  his 
extraordinary  powers,  does  not  excite  one  half  the  at- 
tention which  a  few  witches  did  in  those  days.  Let 
him  muster  all  the  priestcraft  and  superstition  left  in 
the  land  to  his  assistance,  he  could  not  procure  a  jury 
of  twelve  men  to  condemn  a  single  individual  to  death 
for  being  in  league  with  him.  It  was  a  dark  day  for 
the  devil  when  witchcraft  declined,  for  from  that  hour 
his  popularity  has   been  on  the  wane,  it  being  one  of 


AN     INQUIRY PART    I.  179 

his  chief  supports.  All  their  powers  were  derived 
from  him.  Now,  it  is  believed  they  never  had  any, 
and  people  are  as  much  puzzled  to  explain  how  a  hu- 
man beintr  could  become  a  witch  or  a  wizard,  as  how 
a  holy  angel  in  heaven  could  become  a  devil.  But 
while  people  are  generally  agreed  that  witchcraft  was 
all  a  piece  of  superstition  and  do  justice  to  the  devil 
in  freeing  him  from  all  blame  about  it,  yet  they  still 
continue  to  believe  m  his  existence  and  extraordinary 
powers.  We  look  back  with  surprise  to  the  days  when 
our  fathers  burned  the  witches,  and  throw  the  mantle 
of  charity  over  them.  Our  children  will  have  to  do 
the  same  for  us  a  century  hence.  Will  they  not  have 
to  say — "Strange  that  our  fathers  should  say  the  pow- 
er of  witches  was  all  a  piece  of  superstition  yet  not 
see  that  the  power  of  the  devil  was  no  better.  Strange 
that  they  should  perceive  all  the  proofs;  of  witchcraft 
were  mistaken  views  of  the  Bible,  and  yet  think  their 
proofs  of  a  personal  devil  correct :  strange,  that  they 
should  discard  witches  as  imaginary  beings  yet  believe 
their  father  the  devil  to  be  a  real  being.  Their  devil 
never  performed  such  wonders  as  witches  have  done. 
Did  their  devil  ever  brins;  a  good  man  from  the  state 
of  the  dead  to  converse  with  the  living  as  did  the 
witch  of  Endor?  Strange,  beyond  measure  strange, 
that  our  fathers  should  so  completely  discard  witch- 
craft as  a  superstition  which  the  Jews  imbibed  from 
the  Canaanites,  v>diere  no  devil  was  known,  and  yet 
continue  to  believe  in  the  devil,  a  superstition  which 
the  Jews  imbibed  at  Babylon  many  ages  after." — 
Thus  will  our  children  be  surprised  at  our  superstition 
and  weakness,  and  will  have  to  cover  us  with  the 
mantle  of  their  charity  for  our  belief  in  the  personali- 
ty of  the  devil,  as  we  do  that  of  our  fathers  respecting 
witches. 


180  AN    INQ,U1RY PART    I. 

That  a  great  revolution  of  opinion  has  taken  place 
about  witches,  ghosts,  &c.,  no  one  can  well  deny. — 
Well,  bow  has  it  been  effected  ?  Not  by  force,  but 
by  the  slow,  gradual  influence  of  the  light  of  truth. — ■ 
The  Bible  has  been  more  read  and  critically  examined. 
Reason  and  common  sense,  formerly  degraded,  assume 
their  proper  place  and  dignity.  The  arts  and  sciences 
have  been  cultivated  and  the  means  of  human  know- 
ledge greatly  increased.  WitchcrHft,  like  the  owl  of  the 
night,  has  fled  before  all  this  light,  and  no  place  is 
found  for  it  this  country.  So  will  it  be,  and  so  let 
it  be,  until  every  superstition  is  banished  fiom  the 
earth. 

7th.  It  is  also  a  fact,  that  the  common  opinions  en- 
tertained of  the  devil,  are  at  variance  icith  other 
plain  and  aclcnowled^ed  truths  of  the  Bible.  I  shall 
only  give  an  example  or  two  of  this.  The  devil  is 
generally  accused  of  tempting  men  to  sin.  But  when 
the  Scriptures  speak  in  plain  languane,  they  inform  us 
that  men  tempt  each  other  to  sin,  Pro  v.  i.  10.  And 
that  every  man  is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn  away  of 
his  own  lust  and  enticed,  James  i.  14,  and  iv.  1 — 4. 
In  the  popular  language  of  the  times,  Judas'  crimes 
are  ascribed  to  the  devil.  But  they  are  also  ascribed 
to  himself,  Acts  i.  18 — 26.  Judas  takes  all  the  blame 
to  himself — "  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood." — 
By  consulting  the  following  texts,  it  may  be  seen  that 
things  are  sometimes  ascribed  to  the  devil,  to  God,  and 
to  men.  Luke  xxii.  3  ;  John  xiii.  2,  27,  30  ;  Acts  ii. 
23  ;  2  Sam.  xiv.  1  ;  I  Chron.  xxi.  I  ;  I  Kings  xxii. 
22,  23  ;  James  i.  13,  14  ;  Jer.  iv.  10  ;  Ezek.  xiv.  9  ; 
Compare  2  Thess.  ii.  8 — 12;  1  John  iii.  8;  Gen. 
xiv.  6— 8;  xlii.  21,22;  Acts  v.  3,  and  iv.  9.  It 
is  generally  asserted  that  the  devil  is  the  secret 
agent  in  tempting  men,  and   that   he   makes  tools  o\ 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  181 

them  ;  but  this  is  taken  for  granted  as  true,  which 
ought  10  be  proved  true,  for  the  Scriptures  no  where 
assert  this. 

8th.  It  is  also  a  fact,  that  men  in  sinning,  are 
never  conscious  of  the  iuflufnce  of  the  devil  over  them. 
They  have  learned  to  say,  that  the  devil  influences 
men  to  sin,  and  sometimes  blame  the  devil  for  their 
crimes;  but  the  peisonal  consciousness  and  experience 
of  every  ;nan  declares,  that  no  such  influence  w^as  felt, 
nor  w^as  it  needed.  An  evil  influence  is  felt,  but  it  is 
the  influence  of  our  own  lusts  and  passions,  draiv- 
ing  us  away  and  enticing  us.  The  Sc"i|)iure  devil 
does  cempt  us,  but  not  a  fallen  angel,  as  is  commonly 
believed. 

9th.  It  is  also  a  fact,  that  the  common  opinions  en- 
tertained of  the  devil,  ivhether  right  or  wrong,  are  the 
effect  of  early  education  and  popular  opinion.  With 
most  people,  reason,  common  sense,  and  the  Bible,  had 
nothing  to  do  in  forming  such  opinions,  but  they  have 
been  implicitly  received  by  tradition  from  their  fathers. 
They  say  they  believe  them,  but  cannot  tell  why,  ex- 
cept that  they  were  so  taught,  for  they  have  never  ex- 
ercised their  reason  or  studied  the  Bible  to  see  whether 
they  are  true  or  false.  Even  when  a  person  determines 
to  examine  such  opinions,  his  early  prejudices  within, 
and  popular  opinion  without,  overawe  and  deter  him 
from  giving  free  scope  to  his  investigations.  We  speak 
here  from  experience,  for  these  have  been  powerfully 
felt  in  the  rourse  of  this  discussion. 

10th.  The  last  fact  which  I  shall  mention  is,  that 
alloiving  the  personal  existence  of  the  devil  Jully 
proved,  it  is  beyond  all  doubt,  that  he  has  been  much 
misrepresented,  and  his  character  abused  by  many 
Christian  people.  I  shall  only  give  an  instance  or 
two.    For  many  ages  he  was  accused  of  making  witches 


.    / 


182  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

and  wizards.  Now  it  is  allowed  no  such  beings  ever 
existed,  but  the  whole  was  a  piece  of  superstition  and 
an  astonishing  instance  of  human  creduHty.  Again  ; 
for  ages,  and  even  now,  what  frightful  descriptions 
have  been  given  of  the  devil,  in  preaching.  He  has 
been  accused,  as  being  the  tormentor  of  damned  souls 
in  hell,  and  imagination  has  been  put  to  the  utmost 
stretch,  to  describe  his  horrible  modes  of  torture  there. 
Now,  not  a  word  of  this  is  true,  for  let  the  devil  have 
his  due,  no  scripture  writer  ever  says  a  word  about  the 
devil  as  the  tormentor  of  any  one.  In  fact,  many  a 
railing,  not  to  say  wicked  accusation  has  been  brought 
against  the  devil,  and  though  this  is  now  allowed  true, 
no  apology  Is  made  for  such  shameful,  unscriptural  de- 
famation. We  readily  excuse  all  this,  for  though 
preachers  have  declaimed  against  such  a  being  in  the 
pulpit,  and  terrified  people  with  such  horrible  descrip- 
tions of  him,  all  must  have  seen  that  they  had  no  great 
faith  in  their  own  doctrine.  They,  like  other  people, 
live  all  the  six  days  of  the  week  without  any  fear  or 
concern  about  him.  The  minister  makes  him  a  bug- 
bear in  the  pulpit  to  frighten  the  parents,  and  parents 
at  home  make  the  same  use  of  him  to  frighten  their 
children,  but  both  take  care  not  to  be  much  frightened 
themselves. 


SECTION  X. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


Any  objections  which  have  occurred  to  me  against 
the  views  advanced,  I  shall  fairly  state  and  attempt  to 
answer.     It  may  then  be  objected 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  183 

1st.  ''  The  devil,  satan,  or  tempter,  is  spoken  of  as 
a  real  being.  Personal  pronouns  are  not  only  used 
in  speaking  of  him,  but  he  is  represented  as  speaking 
and  acting,  and  we  are  expressly  informed  of  what  he 
said  and  did."  This  objection  has  been  partially  ad- 
verted to  in  the  course  of  our  remarks,  but  1  shall  here 
notice  it  a  little  further.  If  all  to  which  personal  pro- 
nouns are  applied,  are  to  be  considered  real  beings,  we 
must  admit  many  inanimate  things,  yea,  qualities  to  be 
real  beings  as  well  as  the  devil.  For  example,  the 
earth  or  land  is  personified,  Job  xxxi.  38.  The  hea- 
vens are  also  personified,  Jer.  ii.  12,  13.  So  is  the 
sea,  Job  xxxviii.  8,  9..  Death,  the  grave,  and  destruc- 
tion are  personified,  Job  xxviii.  22,  1  Cor.  xv.  55. 
The  hosts  of  heaven  are  personified,  Psalm  cxlviii.  1 
— 5.  See  the  whole  Psalm.  The  mountains  and 
hills  can  sing,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  field  can  clap 
their  hands,  Isai.  Iv.  12.  Wisdom,  power,  and  a  vari- 
ety of  good  qualities,  are  personified  in  Scripture,  and 
why  not  also  bad  qualities,  yea,  the  principle  of  evil 
itself?  In  short,  if  things  represented  as  speaking  and 
acting,  must  be  considered  as  real  beings,  and  proofs  of 
personal  existence,  then  it  is  certain  all  inanimate  crea- 
tion ought  to  be  considered  real  beings,  for  almost  all 
things  are  represented  as  living,  and  speaking,  and 
acting.  Jotham's  ohve  tree,  fig  tree,  vine  and  bram- 
ble, must  be  considered  living  beings,  for  they  are  re- 
presented as  holding  a  conversation  together.  Judg. 
ix.  7 — 16.  Micaiah's  speech  to  Ahab,  1  Kings  xxii., 
must  also  be  literally  understood,  and  who  does  not 
perceive,  what  absurdities  would  ensue,  if  such  a  mode 
of  interpretation  w^as  adopted. 

2d.  "If  there  be  no  foundation  in  Scripture  for  a 
fallen  angel,  called  the  devil,  how^  came  this  opinion  to 
obtain  such  universal  currency  among  mankind  ?    The 


184  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

opinion,  you  say,  was  held  by  the  Magians,  and  this 
evil  being  was  considered  their  evil  god,  and  called 
ahraman,  and  by  the  Greeks  arimanius.  Zoroaster 
called  him  "an  angel  of  darkness,"  and  other  nations 
have  had  various  other  names  for  him.  Now,  as  all 
counterfeit  money  implies  current,  must  there  not  be 
a  foundation  in  truth  for  such  a  universal  belief  of  an 
evil  being,  call  him  devil,  satan,  or  by  any  other  name  ?" 
As  this  is  the  principal,  and  most  popular  objection, 
which  can  be  advanced  against  my  views,  I  shall  spend 
some  lime  in  conside  ing  it.  It  is  true  that  counterfeit 
money  implies  curient,  but  do  our  orthodox  friends  be- 
lieve, that  count<"ifeit  opinions  in  religion,  always  im- 
ply, that  there  is  some  foundation  in  Scripture  for  them  ? 
Do  they  allows  that  there  is  some  foundation  in  truth 
for  a  purgatory  and  the  doctrine  of  transubsiantiation  ? 
Do  they  believe,  that  there  is  any  foundation  in  truth 
for  witchcraft,  for  ghosts,  and  all  the  different  grades  of 
hobgoblins?  Will  they  allow  that  there  is  a  founda- 
tion m  Sciipture  for  all  the  wild  and  ridiculous  opinions 
which  have  obtained  currency  in  the  world  ?  If  not, 
why  assert  that  there  must  be  for  the  common  opinion 
concerning  the  devil  ?  Is  it  not  possible  to  invent  a 
thousand  things  which  have  no  foundation  in  the  Bi- 
ble? Error  supposes  truth,  as  counterfeit  money  sup- 
poses current,  but  is  it  true  that  every  error  is  a  cor- 
ruption of  truth  ?  But  it  ought  to  be  noticed,  that 
Dean  Prideaux  did  not  consider  the  articles  of  Zoro- 
aster's creed*,  quoierl  Section  iv.  as  corruptions  of  truth, 
but  consonant  to  the  truth.  Nor  do  Christians  in  our 
day,  for  they  have  adopted  both  the  sentiments  and 
language  of  his  creed.  Why  then  call  them  corrup- 
tions of  the  truth  ?  If  they  are,  why  preach  such  cor- 
ruptions for  truth  to  the  world?  Do  orthodox  preach- 
ers tell  the  people,  that  such  sentiments  are  greatly 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  185 

corrupted,  both  as  to  matter  and  lanf^uage?  On  the 
conii-ary,  do  they  not  solemnly  assure  their  hearers,  that 
such  doctrines  are  the  faithful  sayings  of  God,  though 
it  is  notorious  Zoroaster  taught  them  six  hundred  years 
before  the  days  of  Christ.  Will  they  thank  me  for 
suggesting  that  there  is  any  corruption  in  the  case  ?  If 
they  beHeve  such  opinions  have  any  corruption  about 
them,  why  not  purge  them,  and  preach  only  the  una- 
dulterated truth  of  God?  Why  pass  as  current  Bible 
doctrine,  such  counterfeit  opinions  on  the  public?  Al- 
though there  is  no  law  to  punish  men  for  passing  coun- 
terfeit opinions  in  relii^ion,  yet  one  should  think,  their 
own  doctrine  of  eternal  misery,  if  they  believed  it,  would 
be  sufficient  to  deter  them. 

If  the  universal  belief  in  a  devil,  proves  that  there 
is  a  foundation  in  truth  for  the  opinion,  then  Pagan- 
ism, Mahometan  ism,  and  Roman  Catholicism,  have 
all  a  foundation  in  truth,  for  they  have  all  in  their 
turn  been  pretty  universally  believed.  Purgatory,  tran- 
substantiation,  witchcraft,  and  a  thousand  otlier  opin- 
ions, ought  not  to  be  discarded,  for  they  were  once 
generally  believed.  Many  good  and  learned  men  be- 
lieved them,  and  thought  their  proofs  for  them  as  good 
as  those  now  adduced  concerning  the  devil.  Why  are 
they  rejected  ?  Because,  attention  to  the  Bible  has 
shown  they  are  not  taught  there,  and  closer  attention 
to  it  will  show  also,  that  the  common  opinions  concern- 
ing the  devil  are  equally  false.  But  if  the  above  ob- 
jection had  any  real  force,  or  the  reasoning  employed  be 
correct,  our  orthodox  friends  will  allow,  that  universal 
salvation,  and  that  there  is  no  devil,  are  opinions,  which 
may  have  some  foundation  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that 
should  they  ever  come  to  be  universally  believed,  this 
universal  reception  would  make  them  true.  But  will 
ilx^Y  admit  such  reasoning  as  correct  ? 


186  AN    INQUIRY PART    1 

How  such  an  opinion,  as  that  concerning  an  evil 
being  called  the  devil,  came  first  to  exist  among  men, 
has  been  partly  accounted  for  in  Section  iii.  and  iv. — 
Christians  learned  this  opinion  from  the  Jews,  the  Jews 
learned  it  from  Zoroaster's  creed,  and  Zoroaster  learn- 
ed it  from  the  ancient  Magian  religion.  Well,  it  may 
be  asked,  how  came  the  Magians  to  imbibe  such  an 
opinion  ?  I  would  first  answer  this  question  by  asking 
another.  How  came  the  Sabians  to  worship  idols? — 
Was  there  any  foundation  in  Scripture  for  this?  But, 
the  apostle  in  Rom.  i.  answers  the  question,  how  all 
such  deviations  from  truth  originated.  Men  when  they 
knew  God  glorified  him  not  as  God,  they  became  vain 
in  their  imaginations,  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened  ; 
and  professing  themselves  to  be  wise  they  became  fools. 
See  verses  21,  22,  23.  Respecting  the  origin  of  an  evil 
principle,  which  was  afterwards  personified  and  deified, 
Essenus  thus  writes  p.  1 25.  "  Plutarch  observes,  that 
the  doctrine  of  two  contrary  principles  prevailed  in  all 
countries.  The  reason  is  obvious  ;  evil  abounded  in 
ev^ery  age  and  nation  :  and  as  men  could  not  reconcile 
the  notion  of  natural  and  moral  evil  with  an  all-wise 
and  benevolent  author,  it  was  natural  for  them  to  rea- 
son in  the  following  manner:  'Since  nothing  can  come 
into  being  without  a  cause;  and  since  that  which  is 
perfectly  good  cannot  be  the  cause  of  evil,  then  there 
must  exist  a  distinct  principle  in  nature,  as  well  for  the 
production  of  evil  as  of  that  which  is  good.'  In  this 
manner  argued  the  Persian  sages  ;  and  Plutarch  seems 
to  have  considered  the  argument  conclusive.  This  doc- 
trine was  introduced  into  Judea  before  the  age  of  Isai- 
ah, who,  as  we  have  seen,  thus  sets  it  aside  :  '  I  form 
the  light  and  create  darkness  ;  I  make  peace  and  create 
evil :   I  the  Lord  do  all  tliese  things.'  xlv.  7." 

3d.  It  may  also  be  objected,  "you  have  said,  that 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  187 

the  doctrine  of  an  evil  principle  deified,  was  known  as 
early  as  the  days  of  Job,  which  was  about  the  time  of 
Moses :  but  is  not  this  too  early  a  date  for  the  exist- 
ence of  such  an  opinion  among  men,  and  is  there  any 
proof  that  it  existed  at  such  a  date?"  Some  notice 
was  taken  of  this  objection,  Section  iii.  and  I  shall  here 
add  a  k\v  remarks  in  reply  to  it.  It  is  then  certain, 
that  the  worship  of  idols  prevailed  in  the  world  before 
the  days  of  Moses.  If  the  question  is  examined,  did 
the  W'orship  of  idols  or  that  of  an  evil  principle  fiist  pre- 
vail ?  we  think  the  evidence  will  be  in  favor  of  the 
latter.  But,  we  have  found  it  impossible  to  ascertain 
dates  as  to  the  first  origin  of  either,  both  being  lost  in 
antiquity,  where  no  dates  are  given.  Essenus,  quoting 
from  Plutarch,  says  p.  74.  "  '  There  are  others  again, 
who  call  the  good  principle  only  God,  giving  the  name 
of  Demon  to  the  evil  being  ;  in  which  number  is  Zo- 
roaster the  Magian,  who  is  said  to  have  lived  5000 
years  before  the  Trojan  war.  Now,  this  philosopher 
calls  the  good  principle  Oromazes,  and  the  evil  one  Ari- 
manius  ;  adding,  moreover,  that  as  of  all  sensible  beings, 
the  former  bears  the  greatest  resemblance  to  light,  so 
the  latter  was  most  like  darkness.'  §  xlv.  40.  The 
doctrine  here  stated  is  undoubtedly  very  ancient  ;  but 
theearliness  of  the  period  in  W'hich  Zoroaster  is  said  to 
have  lived  is  absurd  and  must  have  proceeded  from  that 
propensity  in  which  all  nations  indulored  to  magnify 
their  own  antiquity."  Further;  Mr.  Mayo,  in  his  An- 
cient Geography,  says,  p.  37,  "  the  Scythians,  whom 
the  dawn  of  history  discovers  in  present  Persia  under 
their  king  Tanus,  attack  Vexores  king  of  Egypt,  con- 
quer Asia,  and  establish  the  Scythian  empire  fifteen 
hundred  years  before  Ninus,  or  three  thousand  six 
hundred  and  sixty  years  before  Christ."  And  quoting 
from  Mr.  Pinkerton  concerning  ''  the  aboriginal  Scy- 


188  AN    INQUIRY PART    1. 

thian  empire  of  Persia,"  he  thus  writes  :  p.  23.  "And 
beyond  this  there  is  no  memorial  of  human  affairs,  save 
in  Egypt  alone,  the  history  of  which  begins  with  Menes, 
the  first  kinir,  about  four  thousand  years  bi-fore  our  era  ; 
while  the  earliest  appearance  of  the  Scythians  in  his- 
tory is  about  four  hundred  years  after,  when  Vexores 
was  king  of  ^-gypt,  and  Tanus  of  the  Scythas — not  to 
mention  the  collateral  lioht  derived  from  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  who  were  Scythae,  as 
just  shown."  He  adds,  on  the -same  page — "on  this 
route  we  shall  find  the  Scythians,  Getae,  or  Goths,  not 
only  peopling  all  ScmuJenavia  and  Germany,  hut  ex- 
tending hence  and  actually  possessing  Gatd  and  Spain 
five  hundred  years  before  Christ,  as  well  as  Biitain  and 
Irelarud  three  hundred  years  before  Christ."  From 
these  statements  the  following  things  are  obvious: 

1st.  That  the  Magian  relijdon  is  very  ancient,  ex- 
tending so  far  batdv  into  aniiquity  that  no  distinct  ac- 
count of  its  origin  is  to  be  found  on  record.  If  such  a 
thing  is  in  existence  we  have  been  unable  to  find  it. — - 
2d.  That  the  people  to  whou)  the  Christian  religion 
was  first  preached,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
must  have  been  previously  imhued  with  the  tenets  of 
the  Ma'^ian  religion.  It  was  preached  first  to  the  Jews, 
who  had  spent  seventy  years  in  captivity  at  Babylon, 
where  we  have  seen  that  the  Magian  religion  prevailed. 
It  was  also  preached  by  the  apostles  to  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  whom  IMr.  Mayo  says,  "  were  Scythians," 
and  "  whom  the  dawn  of  history  discovers  in  present 
Persia,"  the  very  place  where  Prideaux,  above  quoted, 
says  the  Magian  religion  first  originated.  3cl.  Mr. 
Mayo's  statements  also  show  us  how  the  tenets  of  the 
Magi;m  religion  were  diffused  throughout  Europe.  He 
says,  "  the  Scythians  whom  the  dawn  of  history  dis- 
covers in  present  Persia"  we  shall  find  "  not  only  peo^ 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  189 

pling  all  Scandenavia  and  Germany,  but  extending 
hence  and  actually  possessing  Gaul  and  Spain  five  hun- 
dred years  before  Christ,  as  well  as  Britain  and  Ireland 
three  hundred  years  before  Christ."  The  Magian  reli- 
gion being  the  ancient  religion  of  Persia,  when  the  peo- 
ple from  thence  overran  Scandenavia,  Germany,  Gaul, 
Spain,  Britain  and  Ireland,  several  hundred  years  be 
fore  Christ,  they  must  have  carried  its  principles  along 
with  them.  A  miracle  was  necessary  to  prevent  Chris- 
tianity being  blended  with  them  when  introduced  into 
those  countries.  That  it  has  been  blended  with  them, 
we  think  proved  in  preceding  Sections. 

We  have  then  all  the  evidence  which  the  nature  of 
the  case  will  admit,  that  the  doctrine  of  an  evil  princi- 
ple deified,  was  known  among  men  in  the  days  of  Job. 
If  our  orthodox  brethren  deny  this,  and  can  prove  that 
their  devil  had  another  or  better  origin,  we  respectfully 
request  them  to  prove  it. 

Such  are  the  chief  objections,  which  are  likely  to  be 
made  against  my  views  of  the  devil,  excepting  such  as 
might  be  made  against  any  innovation  in  religious  popu- 
lar opinions.  But  as  these  have  been  stated  and  an- 
swered in  my  Inquiry  into  the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  he. 
to  it  I  refer  the  reader.  In  concluding  this  Section  I 
would  merely  remark,  that  many  have  good  reason  to 
object  against  my  views,  for  if  they  are  true,  what  a 
great  loss  they  must  sustain  in  being  robbed  of  their 
principal  topics  of  preaching  and  religious  conversation. 
The  devil  and  eternal  hell  torments  are  themes  on 
which  many  delight  to  dwell.  They  seem  health  to 
their  navel  and  marrow  to  their  bones,  and  to  remove 
these  is  taking  away  their  gods,  and  what  have  they 
more  ? 

13 


190  AN    JNQ,UIRY PABT 


SECTION  XL 

CONCLUDING  REMARKS,  POINTING  OUT  SOME  OF  THE 
EVILS  WHICH  HAVE  ARISEN  FROM  THE  COMMON  OPIN' 
IONS   ENTERTAINED   OF  THE   DEVIL   AND   SATAN. 

It  would  be  an  endless  task  to  detail  all  the  evils 
which  have  resulted  from  the  common  opinions  enter- 
tained of  the  devil.  A  few  only  I  shall  name,  and 
leave  the  reader  to  pursue  the  subject.  If  it  then  be 
true,  as  I  have  attempted  to  show,  that  no  such  being 
as  the  devil  exists,  let  the  reader  consider 

1st.  What  a  vast  number  of  passages  in  God's  word 
have  been  perverted  in  proof  of  this  doctrine.  They 
are  almost  innumerable.  Is  there  no  evil  then  in  mis- 
understanding and  perverting  God's  word  ?  No  man 
will  say  so,  who  loves  it,  and  trembles  at  it.  It  is  one 
of  the  greatest  of  all  evils,  for  it  has  been  the  fruitful 
source  of  most  evils  which  have  existed  in  the  world. 
If  this  doctrine  be  false  what  a  great  change  it  produ" 
ces  on  the  whole  face  of  the  Bible. 

2d.  Let  the  reader  consider  the  evil  effects  of  this 
doctrine  on  mankind.  A  belief  in  the  common  opin- 
ions concerning  the  devil,  has  laid  the  foundation  for 
almost  every  other  superstition  among  Christians.  Take 
into  view  also,  what  unnecessary  and  distressing  fears 
the  belief  of  such  opinions  has  given  to  children,  and 
even  persons  of  riper  years.  And  who  can  tell  the  dis- 
tress which  they  have  given  people,  when  closing  their 
mortal  career.  On  weak  minds,  their  influence  has 
bam  such  as  to  drive  some  to  madness,  and  others  to 


AN    INQUIRY PART  I.  191 

suicide.  Most  people  would  dismiss  a  domestic,  if 
found  frightening  their  children  with  ghosts  and  hob- 
goblins :  but  these  same  people  cheerlully  pay  a  man 
to  frighten  both  them  and  their  children,  one  day  in 
the  week,  with  the  devil.  The  devil,  with  many  peo- 
ple, is  much  more  feared  than  Gcd.  But  what  an  ex- 
cellent apology  have  such  opinions  afforded  men  for 
their  sins.  The  devil  has  been  obliged  to  bear  the 
hlame,  while  men  have  had  all  the  pleasure  of  sinning. 
By  such  opinions,  men's  attention  has  been  turned 
away  from  the  true  devil  within  them,  to  an  invisible, 
imaginary  being,  called  the  devil,  without  them.  While 
a  deceived  heart  has  been  drawino-  them  aside  from 
truth  and  holiness,  the  doctrine  of  the  devil  helps  to 
calm  their  fears,  stupifies  their  conscience,  and  embol- 
dens them  to  repeat  their  crimes.  And  why  should  it 
not,  if  it  be  true,  that  such  a  powerful,  deceitful  being 
as  the  devil,  is  continually  influencing  them  to  sin  ? 

3d.  The  common  opinions  concerning  the  devil,  are 
highly  dishonorable  to  the  character  of  God,  We  have 
never  seen  the  least  attempt  made  to  show  how  such  a 
being  as  the  devil  was  for  the  honor  of  God's  charac- 
ter. On  the  contrary,  it  is  believed,  that  sin  dishonors 
God,  and  why  not  also  the  devil,  the  author  of  sin  ?— 
But  if  any  man  can  explain,  how  the  devil  can  be  for 
the  honor  of  God,  either  here  or  hereafter,  we  should 
be  glad  to  see  it  done.  How  such  a  being,  with  such 
extraordinary  powers,  with  this  world  for  his  range  of 
wickedness,  and  existing  forever  the  enemy  of  God  and 
the  tormentor  of  men,  can  be  for  the  honor  of  Jeho- 
vah^s  character,  is  beyond  all  my  feeble  powers  to 
comprehend.  It  seems  to  argue,  that  God  could  not, 
or  would  not  prevent  his  existence.  That  he  cannot, 
or  will  not  curtail  bis  powers,  confine  him,  restore  him, 


192  AN    INQUIRY PART  I. 

or  strike  him  out  of  existence.  This  evil,  once  intro- 
duced, is  without  remedy  and  without  end.  It  is  cer- 
tainly a  poor  account  of  God  to  tell  us,  that  the  glory 
and  honor  of  his  character,  is  inseparable  from  the 
devil  and  that  the  eternal  misery  of  this  being  with 
multitudes  of  mankind,  are  to  promote  the  glory  of  God 
forever.  If  this  be  glory  and  honor,  pray  what  is  dis- 
honor or  disgrace  ? 

4th.  The  common  opinions  concerning  the  devil  and 
satan,  with  others  generally  held,  have  tended  to  land 
men  in  downright  infidelity.  Is  it  any  matter  of  sur- 
prise that  men  become  infidels,  when  such  opinions  are 
presented  to  them  as  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Is 
it  not  rather  matter  of  wonder  that  all  men  are  not  in- 
fidels ?  Cast  your  eyes  round  the  whole  world,  and 
say,  if  infidelity  has  not  had  its  hot-bed,  in  the  coun- 
tries where  such  absurd  and  ridiculous  opinions  have 
been  palmed  on  the  world  for  religion  by  interested 
priests.  Neither  infidelity,  nor  idolatry,  can  be  con- 
quered or  prevented,  but  by  the  truth  of  God. 

5th.  Such  opinions  mixed  with  the  religion  ^of  Jesus 
Christ,  have  been  in  time  past,  and  must  be  while  they 
are  retained,  a  great  hindrance  to  the  universal  recep- 
tion of  Christianity  in  the  world.  It  is  a  question  of 
no  ordinary  kind  to  a  reflecting  mind.  Is  the  religion  of 
Jesus  Christ  presented  to  the  heathen  in  its  pure  una- 
dulterated state  ?  Or,  are  we  introducing  to  them  a 
human  creed,  containing  articles  derived  from  Zoroa- 
ster and  the  Grecian  philosophy,  and  only  supplanting 
one  system  of  ignorance,  superstition,  and  cruelty,  by 
establishing  another  in  some  respects  worse  ?  Viewin^j 
the  creeds  taught  the  heathen  generally,  let  us  see  if 
this  is  saying  any  thing  but  the  truth.  Christian  mis- 
sionaries teach  only  one  God,  but  this  God  they  divide 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  193 

into  three.  But  passing  this,  I  ask,  what  heathen  god 
ever  called  on  its  votaries  to  believe  that  he  had  elected 
some  to  everlasting  happiness  before  they  were  born, 
and  had  left,  not  to  say  doomed  all  the  rest  to  endless 
misery  ?  Heathen  gods  have  required  parents  to  sac- 
rifice their  children  to  them,  women  to  immolate  them- 
selves on  the  funeral  piles  of  their  husbands,  and  heca- 
tombs of  old  and  young  have  been  slaughtered  to  ap- 
pease their  wrath  ;  but  name  the  heathen  god,  if  you 
can,  that  ever  required  its  worshippers  to  be  willing  to 
be  damned  in  order  that  he  might  save  them  ?  And, 
when  did  any  of  them  ever  teach  their  worshippers, 
that  their  happiness  in  heaven  will  be  greatly  increased 
by  the  sight  of  their  nearest  and  dearest  relatives  wri- 
thing under  eternal  torments  ?  I  call  on  our  orthodox 
brethren  to  name  the  heathen  god,  who  ever  taught 
such  doctrines,  or  ever  bore  such  a  cruel,  horrible  char- 
acter ;  and  to  crown  the  climax  of  his  nameless  wick- 
edness said,  ''all  this  ivas  done  for  the  display  of  his 
glorious  character  J^  Who  would  be  a  Christian  if  this 
be  the  Christian's  God  ?  Who  would  not  be  a  Pagan 
to  get  rid  of  such  a  God  ? 

Is  it  said — "  Missionaries  do  not  teach  such  things 
to  the  heatlien  ?"  It  will  certainly  afford  me  pleasure 
to  find  that  they  do  not.'  But  did  they  not  teach  such 
things  here,  before  they  went  far  hence  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles to  teach  them  ?  If  they  taught  them  here,  why 
not  there?  Presuming,  then,  that  such  doctrines  are 
taught  to  the  heathen,  permit  me  to  ask,  what  an  intel- 
ligent heathen  might  be  expected  to  say  to  such  Mis- 
sionaries ?  He  might  surely  with  great  propriety  say 
something  like  the  following  — "  Gentlemen  Missiona- 
ries— You  have  been  at  some  trouble,  and  considerable 
expense,  in  coming  here  to  teach  us  about  your  God 


194  AN    INQUIRY PART    I. 

and  religion.  While  we  thank  you  for  your  good  in- 
tentions, we  must  say,  that  we  cannot  change  our  own 
gods  for  yours,  or  add  one  more  to  the  gods  we  have 
already,  unless  he  is  a  good,  kind,  and  merciful  God, — 
Our  own  gods  are  cruel  enough,  but  if  your  God  be  as 
you  describe  him,  to  receive  him  as  our  God,  would 
only  be  to  add  to  our  miserable  condition.  We  have 
had  all  the  tender  feelings  of  our  hearts  torn  to  pieces, 
in  seeing  our  infants  and  relations  tortured  to  death  to- 
satisfy  our  present  gods.  But  bad  as  they  are,  none 
of  them  ever  made  such  cruel  demands  on  us  as  yours 
do  on  you.  No,  none  of  them  ever  demanded  of  us  to 
believe,  that  our  eternal  felicity  would  be  increased,  by 
beholding  others  in  misery,  and  that  we  ourselves  must 
be  willing  to  be  damned  for  their  glory,  or  we  never 
can  be  saved  by  them.  You  have  come  a  great  way 
to  tell  us  that  all  our  gods  are  but  dumb  idols.  Per- 
haps this  may  be  true  ;  but  unless  you  suppose  us  hea- 
then, devoid  of  all  feeling  and  common  sense,  how 
could  you  ever  suppose,  that  we  would  renounce  our 
earthly  cruel  false  gods,  for  an  eternally  cruel  true  one. 
Return  to  your  employers,  with  our  thanks  for  their' 
good  intentions  towards  us,  and  when  we  send  Mis- 
sionaries to  your  country,  they  shall  bring  you  thou- 
sands of  gods  all  better  than  the  one  you  propose  to 
us.  Bad  as  our  gods  are,  none  of  them  like  yours,  al- 
lows a  devil  to  ruin  us  here,  and  torment  us  forever  in 
the  world  to  come.  Our  fathers  knew  about  your 
devil,  and  you  have  borrowed  a  considerable  part  of 
your  creed,  from  what  they  were  taught  many  years 
before  your  religion  existed,  and  yet  you  come  to  tell 
us  things  v,'hich  we  knew  long  before,  as  wonderful 
revelations  from  your  God.  Whether  your  impudence, 
is  not  as  great  as  you  think  our  ignorance  to  be,  you 


AN    INQUIRY PART    I.  195 

may  reflect  about,  on  your  passage  home.     Fare  you 
well." 

To  conclude.  If  we  wish  the  heathen  to  cast  their 
idols  to  the  moles  and  to  the  bats,  let  us  cast  our  devil 
and  many  other  false  opinions  out  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, and  let  us  both  say,  what  have  we  any  more  to 
do  with  idols,  or  with  the  devil  ?  the  Lord,  he  is  our 
God,  and  we  will  serve  him. 


END    OF    THE    FIRST    PART. 


PART  11. 


AN  INQUIRY 


INTO  THE  EXTENT  OF  DURATION  EXPRESSED  BY 
THE  TERMS  OLIM,AION,  AND  AIONION,  RENDERED 
EVERLASTING,  FOREVER,  &c.  IN  THE  COMMON 
VERSION,  ESPECIALLY  WHEN  APPLIED  TO  PUN- 
ISHxMENT. 


SECTION  I. 

ALL  THE  TEXTS  NOTICED  WHERE  OLIM  OCCURS  IN 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  BUT  IS  RENDERED  BY  WORDS 
WHICH  DO  NOT  EXPRESS  OR  IMPLY  ETERNAL  DURA- 
TION. 

Taylor,  in  his  Hebrew  concordance,  on  the  word 
olim,  says,  "  The  word  is  applied  to  time,  and  signi- 
fieth  a  duration  which  is  concealed,  as  being  of  an  un- 
known or  great  length,  with  respect  either  to  time  past 
or  to  come."  After  quoting  some  texts,  which  he  sup 
posed  proof  of  this,  he  adds  :  "it  signifies  eternity,  not 
from  the  proper  force  of  the  word,  but  when  the  sense 
of  the  place,  or  the  nature  of  the  subject  to  which  it  is 
applied  requireth  it ;  as  God  and  his  attributes."  As 
he  refers  to  no  text  to  show,  that  when  applied  to  pun- 
ishment it  signifies  eternity,  it  may,  I  think,  be  inferred, 


198  AN    INQUIRY PART   II, 

that  he  did  not  think  it  was  ever  so  applied.  Park- 
hurst,  on  the  word  olim,  says,  "  it  seems  to  be  much 
more  frequently  used  for  an  indefinite  than  for  infinite 
time."  And  in  his  Greek  Lexicon,  on  the  words  aion 
and  aionios,  he  says,  that  the  Hebrew  word  olim  an- 
swers as  the  corresponding  word  for  these  two  words  in 
the  Greek  of  the  Seventy,  ''which  words  denote  time 
hidden  from  man,  whether  indefinite  or  definite,  whether 
past  or  future."  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  letters  to  Dr. 
Miller,  p.  128,  commenting  on  Mic.  v.  1,  says  :  ''the 
words  kedesh  and  od,  rendered  byTurretine,  eternity, 
are  like  the  Greek  aion,  that  also  signifies  any  thing 
ancient,  which  has  endured  or  is  to  endure  for  a  long 
period.  The  question  when  these  words  are  to  have 
the  sense  of  ancient  or  very  old,  is  always  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  nature  of  the  case,  i.  e.  by  the  context." 

Concessions,  such  as  these,  from  critics  on  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  ought  to  lead  every  man  to  exa- 
mine, if  these  terms  are  ever  used  in  the  Bible  to  ex- 
press the  endless  duration  of  punishment.  Mr.  Stuart's 
rule,  if  applied  with  attention  to  tlie  general  usage  of 
these  terms,  would  soon  cool  the  zeal  of  many  people, 
who  seem  to  dwell  with  peculiar  delight  on  the  end- 
less duration  of  punishment  to  their  fellow  creatures. 
It  is  evident,  that  the  translators  of  the  common  ver- 
sion were  fully  aware,  that  olim  was  often  used  by  the 
sacred  writers  to  express  a  limited  period  of  time,  for 
1st.  They  render  it  continuance,  Isai.  Ixiv.  5. 

2d.  Ancient,  and  apply  it  to /anc^worArs,  Prov.  xxii. 
28.  To  people,  Isai.  xliv.  7.  To  paths,  Jer.  xviii. 
15.  To  high  places,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  2.  To  nations, 
Jer.  V.  15.  To  times,  Psalm  Ixxvii.  5,  which  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  old.  Had  olim  in  these  texts  been 
rendered  eternal,  ur  everlasting,  as  in  some  other  places, 
the  impropriety  would  be  very  manifest.     We  would 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  199 

then  have  had  an  eternal  landmark,  an  everlasting  peo- 
ple, eternal  paths,  and  everlastino-  high  places  ;  yea, 
an  everlasting  nation,  and  eternal  times.  But  they 
had  no  idea  that  this  word  always  expressed  endless 
duration,  and  accordingly  rendered  it  ancient  as  the 
context  of  the  passages  demanded.  In  the  last  text 
they  have  rendered  olim  both  by  the  word  old  and  an- 
cient, which  if  rendered  eternal  or  everlasting,  the  pas- 
sages would  read  thus  :  "  1  have  considered  the  days 
of  everlasting,  the  years  of  eternal  times." 

3d.  Olim  is  rendered  old  and  is  equivalent  to  an- 
cient, as  in  the  last  class  of  passages.  Thus  the  "  days 
of  old"  is  explained  to  mean  "  the  years  of  many  gen- 
erations," Deut.  xxxii.  7,  Isai.lxiii.  9,  comp,  verse  11, 
which  shows  that  the  days  of  old  refer  to  tlie  days  of 
Moses,  Jer.  vl,  16,Lam.iii.  6,  Amo<-  ix.  11,  Mic.  vii. 
14,  Mai.  iii.  4.  In  this  last  text  "  days  of  old"  is  ex- 
plained to  be  "  former  years,"  and  in  the  margin  our 
translators  have  put  "  ancient  years,"  See  also  Job 
xxii.  15,  Prov.  xxiii.  10,  Isai.  iviii.  12,  where  we  read 
of  the  "old  way"  the  "old  landmark"  and  "the  old 
waste  places."  The  explanation  given  in  this  last  text 
is  "  thou  shalt  raise  up  tlie  foundations  of  many  gene- 
rations." The  same  is  repeated,  chap.  Ixi.  4.  In  the 
following  texts  olim  is  rendered  old  and  is  applied  to  a 
variety  of  things,  which  it  would  only  be  a  waste  of 
time  to  particularize.  Ezek.  xxv.  15,  Jer.  xxviii.  8, 
Gen.  vi.  4,  1  Sam.  xxvii.  8,  Psalm  cxix.  62,  Isai.  xlvi. 
9,  Comp.  verse  10,  Ezek.  xxvi.  20,  Josh.  xxiv.  2,  Jer. 
ii.  20,  Psalm  xxv,  6,  Isai.  Ivii.  11  and  li.  9,  "  ancient 
days"  and  "  generations  old"  are  used  as  explanatory 
of  each  other.  Eccles.  i.  10,  Such  are  all  the  texts 
in  which  olim  is  rendered  old,  and  on  which  we  shall 
submit  a  few  brief  remarks.     Let  it  be  then  supposed 


200  ,  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

for  a  moment,  that  it  had  been  rendered  everlasting,  or 
by  any  other  word  which  has  the  idea  of  endless  du- 
ration affixed  to  it,  what  would  follow  ?  It  may  be 
observed  as  an  example,  that  men  are  called  on  to  re- 
member the  days  of  everlasting,  that  God  carried  Israel 
all  the  days  of  everlasting,  and  that  some  are  spoken  of 
as  dead  from  everlasting.  Besides ;  the  everlasting 
waste  places  were  to  be  built,  and  the  giants  were  from 
everlasting,  men  of  renown.  Whoever  chooses  to  go 
over  all  the  above  texts  will  see,  that  to  translate  olim 
everlasting  or  eternal,  would  involve  the  inspired  wri- 
ters in  the  grossest  absurdities.  It  is  evident,  that  in 
all  these  texts,  as  in  the  preceding,  olim  rendered  old, 
signifies  ancient.  Though  it  expresses  a  long,  indefi- 
nite period  of  time,  yet  it  would  not  be  very  difficult 
to  ascertain,  in  some  instances  at  least,  how  many  years 
were  meant.  U  olim  then,  in  any  text  rendered  ever- 
lasting or  eternal,  does  convey  the  sense  of  endless  du- 
ration, it  is  obvious  that  it  cannot  have  this  meaning  in 
any  of  the  texts  which  have  yet  been  brought  to  view. 
Both  the  texts  and  their  contexts  forbid  this,  and  we 
have  seen,  that  an  explanation  is  given  of  this  word  by 
the  sacred  v/riters  to  prevent  all  misapprehension  on 
the  subject. 

4th.  In  the  followins;  places  olim  is  rendered  aiiy, 
long-,  any  time,  long  time,  long  home,  and  long  dead. 
Levit.  XXV.  32  ;  Isai.  xlii.  14  ;  Eccles.  xii.  5  ;  Psalm 
cxliii.  3.  To  understand  olim  as  meaning  everlasting 
in  these  texts,  w^ould  make  the  inspired  writers  to  say, 
that  some  have  been  eternally  dead,  that  the  grave  is 
man's  everlasting  home,  and  that  God  has  eternally 
held  eternally  held  his  peace. 

5th.  In  the  following  texts  olim  is  rendered  world. 
Psalm  Ixxiii.  12;  Eccles.  iii.  11  ;  Isai.  Ixiv.  4.     The 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  201 

language  used,  John  ix.  32,  seems  to  be  taken  from 
this  last  text,  and  in  both,  the  meaning  seems  to  be, 
since  the  age  began,  probably  referring  to  the  Mosaic 
age  or  dispensation.  In  Isai.  xlv.  17,  it  is  said,  "Is- 
rael shall  be  saved  in  the  Lord  with  an  everlasting  sal- 
vation :  ye  shall  not  be  ashamed  nor  confounded,  world 
without  end."  Taylor,  in  his  Hebrew  Concordance, 
says  it  signifies  "  tlie  ages  of  perpetuity."  I  would 
merely  suggest  it  for  consideration,  if  the  phrase 
"  world  without  end,"  does  not  refer  to  the  age  or  dis- 
pensation of  the  Messiah,  which  age  was  not  to  be  suc- 
ceeded by  any  other,  and  corresponds  to  passages  in 
the  New  Testament  where  it  is  said  to  be  everlasting, 
and  to  endure /oreyer.  '  Whatever  may  be  in  this,  we 
think  it  is  evident  that  oJim  rendei'ed  world,  in  these 
texts,  does  not  mean  endless  duration.  How  does  it 
sound  to  say,  that  God  sets  eternity  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  that  the  ungodly  prosper  in  the  eternity  ! — 
Olim,  rendered  world  in  these  texts,  seems  to  be  used 
in  a  similar  sense  as  aion  and  aionion  translated 
world,  in  the  New  Testament.  Age,  in  both,  would 
be  a  better  rendering,  for  surely  neither  the  material 
world  nor  eternity  can  be  referred  to. 

6th.  In  Jer.  xlix.  36  olim  is  translated  "  outcasts. ^^ 
Why  it  is  so  I  cannot  conceive.  As  it  cannot  affect 
the  subject  under  consideration,  it  would  not  be  of  much 
use  to  spend  time  in  mquiring. 

7th.  In  Deut.  xxxiii.  15,  the  word  olim  is  rendered 
"  lasting,"  By  quoting  the  whole  verse  it  will  be  seen, 
that  lasting  hills  in  the  last  part,  is  just  another  ex- 
pression for  ancient  mountains  in  the  first ;  "  and  for 
the  chief  things  of  the  ancient  mountains,  and  for  the 
precious  things  of  the  lasting  hills."  It  will  be  seen 
presently,  that  olim  here  translated  ancient  and  last- 


202  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

ing,  and  applied  to  the  mountains  and  hills,  might  just 
as  well  have  been  translated  everlasting,  as  it  is  in 
Gen.  xlix.  26,  and  Hah.  iii.  6,  and  applied  to  the 
same  things.  But  I  forbear  further  remarks  until  we 
come  to  those  passages. 

8th.  I  find  that  olim  is  rendered  alway,  and  always, 
Jer.  XX.  17  ;  Gen.  vi.  3  ;  1  Chron.  xvi.  15  ;  Job  vii. 
16;  Psalm  cxix.  112,  In  this  l"ast  text  David  ex- 
plains always,  by  adding,  ''  even  unto  the  end."  But 
everlasting  or  eternity  has  no  end. 

9th.  Sometimes  olim  is  rendered  any  more. — 
Ezek.  xxvii.  36,  and  xxviii.  19.  The  prophet  is 
speaking  of  Tyre,  and  the  sense  evidently  is,  that  it 
should  not  be  any  more,  as  formerly,  a  place  famous 
for  trade. 

10th.  It  is  rendered  7iever,  in  the  following  places  : 
2  Sam.  xii.  10  :  Judg.  ii.  1  ;  Psalm  xv.  5  ;  xxx.  6  ; 
xxxi.  1  ;  Iv.  22 ;  Ixxi,  1  ;  and  cxix.  93  ;  Prov.  x.  30 ; 
Isai.  xiv.  20  ;  xxv.  2  ;  Ezek.  xxvi.  21  ;  Joel  ii,  26, 
27.  But  surely  no  one  ever  thought  that  never  in  these 
texts  expresses  endless  duration.  For  example,  was 
the  sword  not  to  depart  from  David's  house  to  the  end- 
less ages  of  eternity  ?  And  was  God's  covenant  with 
Israel  to  have  no  end  ?  We  are  sure  it  has  waxed  old 
and  vanished  away.  In  short,  we  use  the  word  never 
every  day  in  a  similar  way,  but  no  one  interprets  our 
language  as  meaning  endless  duration.  In  the  New 
Testament  we  shall  see  that  the  word  aion  is  also  ren- 
dered never,  and  is  applied  in  a  similar  way. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II, 


203 


SECTION  IL 

ALL  THE  PASSAGES  NOTfCED,  WHERE  OLIM  IS  USED,  AND 
RENDERED  BY  WORDS  WHICH  CONVEY  THE  IDEA  OF 
ENDLESS  DURATION. 

If  the  sacred  writers  used  the  term  olim,  to  express 
limited  duration  in  so  man}^  instances,  as  we  have  seen 
in  the  preceding  Section,  our  translators  rendering  the 
same  word  by  English  terms  expressing  endless  dura* 
tion,  can  never  give  it  such  a  signification.  In  the 
texts  now  to  be  introduced,  they  have  rendered  olim 
by  the  words  perpetual,  everlasting,  eternal,  forever, 
and  forever  and  ever  ;  but  can  such  renderings  alter  the 
sense  in  which  the  sacred  writers  used  it  ?  No ;  for 
we  shall  see  that  the  things  to  which  it  is  applied,  and 
the  scope  of  the  contexts,  in  a  great  many  instances, 
at  least,  utterly  forbid  it.  This  is  universally  ac- 
knowledged, and  will  presently  be  seen  from  the  pas- 
sages. It  will  be  perceived,  that  this  word  is  used  to 
express  duration  that  is  past.  The  reader  has  then  to 
consider,  whether  it  refers  to  endless  duration  which  is 
past.  It  also  expresses  duration  to  come,  and  it  must 
be  considered,  whether  it  is  used  to  express  a  proper 
eternity  to  come.  In  short,  we  have  to  examine  with 
attention,  whether  this  word,  rendered  perpetual,  eter- 
nal, forever,  and  forever  and  ever,  was  designed  to  ex^ 
press  the  endless  duration  of  the  things  to  which  the 
eacred  writers  apply  it.  The  question  is  not,  are  the 
persons  or  things  to  which  it  is  applied  of  endless  du- 
ration in  their  natures,  but  was  this  term  used  to  ex- 


204  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

press  it  ?     Is  it  this  word  which  shows   they  are  of 
endless  duration  ? 

1st.  I  find  olim,  then,  is  rendered  ^'  perpetual,'^  and 
applied  in  the  following  manner.  The  covenant  God 
made  with  Noah  was  to  be  "  for  perpetual  genera- 
tions," Gen.  ix.  12.  The  priest's  office,  was  to  be 
Aaron's  and  his  son's,  "  for  a  perpetual  statute,"  Exod. 
xxix.  9.  The  suburbs  of  certain  cities,  were  to  be  the 
inheritance  of  the  Levites,  "  for  a  perpetual  posses- 
sion," Levit.  XXV.  34.  Certain  portions  were  to  be 
the  provision  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  by  "  a  perpetual 
statute,"  Levit.  xxiv.  9.  It  was  to  be,  "  a  perpetual 
statute,"  that  the  person  who  sprinkled  the  water  of 
separation,  should  be  unclean  until  the  even.  Num. 
xix.  21.  The  Sabbath  was  to  be  observed  by  the 
children  of  Israel,  throughout  their  generations,  ''  for 
a  perpetual  covenant,"  Exod.  xxxi.  16.  To  them  it 
was  also  to  be  "a  perpetual  statute,"  that  they  should 
neither  eat  fat  nor  blood,  Levit.  iii.  17,  The  meat- 
offering was  to  be  "  a  perpetual  ordinance  unto  the 
Lord,"  Ezek.  xlvi.  14.  And  the  children  of  Israel 
are  spoken  of  as  saying,  come  and  let  us  join  our- 
selves to  the  Lord  in  "  a  perpetual  covenant,"  Jer.  1. 
5.  In  all  these  passages,  the  word  perpetual  is  ap- 
plied to  things  belonging  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
which  was  never  intended  to  be  endless  in  its  duration. 
Olim  is  rendered  perpetual  in  these  passages,  and  it 
is  rendered  everlasting  in  others,  and  applied  to  the 
same  things.  Indeed,  had  our  translators  consulted 
uniformity  in  their  version,  they  would  have  always 
rendered  it  so.  What  then  does  perpetual  or  ever- 
lasting express,  when  applied  to  the  things  belonging 
to  the  Jewish  dispensation  ?  We  think  it  is  obvious 
that  it  simply  signifies  that  those  things  were  to  be 
observed  by  the  Jews   while  that  dispensation  con- 


AN    INQUIRY-— PART    II.  205 

tlnued-     When  it  ended,  the  everlasting  or  perpetual 
ended. 

But  further ;  we  find  olhn  rendered  perpetual,  and 
applied  as  follows.  Speaking  of  Babylon,  and  other 
places,  it  is  said  they  shall  be  made  "  perpetual  deso- 
lations," Jer.  XXV.  9,  12;  Ezek.  xxxv.  9;  Zeph.  ii. 
9.  And  of  Bozrah,  and  other  cities,  that  they  shall 
be  '-perpetual  wastes,"  Jer.  xlix.  13.  And  speaking 
of  some  persons  it  is  said,  Psalm  Ixxviii.  6^,  that  God 
would  put  them  to  "  a  perpetual  reproach."  God  also 
threatened  Israel,  Jer.  xviii.  16,  to  make  their  land  a 
"perpetual  hissing;"  and  bring  on  them  ''•' a  perpetual 
shame,"  xxiii.  40.  Concerning  the  people  of  Seir  it 
is  said,  that  they  had  against  Israel  "  a  perpetual 
hatred,"  Ezek.  xxxv,  5,  Of  some  persons  it  is  said, 
they  shall  sleep  "  a  perpetual  sleep,"  Jer.  li.  39,  and 
repeated,  verse  57.  Besides,  we  find  it  said,  Jer.  v. 
22,  that  the  Lord  placed  ''  the  sand  for  the  bound  of 
the  sea  by  a  perpetual  decree  that  it  cannot  pass  it," 
Moreover,  we  find  it  declared,  Hab-  iii.  6,  that  the 
hills  are  perpetual.  "  He  stood,  and  measured  the 
earth  :  he  beheld,  and  drove  asunder  the  nations;  and 
the  everlasting  mountains  were  scattered,  the  perpetu- 
al hills  did  bow :  his  ways  are  everlasting."  In 
this  last  text,  olhn  is  rendered  both  perpetual  and 
everlasting,  and  without  scruple  is  applied  to  the  hills 
and  mountains  as  well  as  to  the  ways  of  God.  These 
are  all  tiie  texts  in  which  olim  is  rendered  in  our  ver- 
sion perpetud.  On  the  whole  of  them  I  shall  now 
make  a  few  brief  remarks. 

1st.  It  is  evident  from  the  last  quoted  text,  that  per- 
petual and  everlasting  are  used  to  express  the  same 
idea.  The  "  everlasting  mountains,"  and  "  the  per- 
petual hills,"  are  synonymous  expressions.  When  it 
js,  therefore,  saic}  that  $h§  mountains  and  bills  are  per* 
14 


206  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

petual  or  everlasting,  k\v  ever  inferred  that  they  had 
existed  from  eternity,  or  would  exist  to  endless  dura- 
tion. The  everlasting  nature  of  their  existence  as  to 
time  past,  is  limited  to  the  time  of  their  creation,  and 
in  regard  to  futurity,  their  existence  is  bounded  by  the 
dissolution  of  the  present  world.  Here  then  is  an 
everlasting,  bounded  by  time,  and  does  not  extend  to 
endless  duration,  either  as  to  the  past  or  future. 

2d.  In  all  the  above  texts,  where  olim  is  rendered 
perpetual,  it  is  never  used  to  express  endless  duration. 
The  things  to  which  it  is  applied  clearly  decide  this. 
Unless  this  world  is  to  continue  to  endless  duration, 
how  is  the-  sand  to  be  a  perpetual  bound  to  the  sea, 
and  the  hills  and  mountains  never  cease  to  exist  ? — 
Moreover,  how  is  Babylon  and  other  places  to  be 
endless  desolations  ?  In  short,  if  perpetual  expresses 
endless  duration,  some  are  to  sleep  to  endless  duration. 
The  question,  perhaps,  may  then  be  asked.  How  long 
does  perpetual  mean  in  the  above  texts  ?  To  this  I  an- 
swer, that  in  all  of  them  it  does  not  designate  the  same 
period  of  time.  The  longest  period  expressed  by  it 
is  not  extended  beyond  the  existence  of  this  world. — 
In  the  place  where  it  is  said  some  were  to  sleep  a  per- 
petual sleep,  the  Babylonians  are  referred  to  ;  they 
were  asleep  when  their  city  was  taken,  and  being 
killed  while  asleep,  they  no  more  awoke  in  this  world, 
and  hence  their  sleep  is  called  perpetual.  If  per- 
petual is  understood  to  mean  endless,  those  persons 
are  never  to  be  raised  from  the  dead.  Such,  then,  as 
maintain  a  universal  resurrection  of  all  the  dead,  must 
give  up  the  idea  that  olim,  rendered  perpetual,  signi- 
fies a  proper  eternity. 

3d.  Let  it  be  noticed,  that  in  none  of  the  above 
texts,  is  a  reference  made  to  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  in  a  future  state.  But  even  admitting,  that  in 
a  number  of  them  it  had  been  expressly  declared,  that 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  207 

the  \vlcked,  and  the  wicked  in  a  future  state  of  exist- 
ence, should  be  punished  with  perpetual  torments,  this 
would  prove  nothing  conclusive  that  these  torments 
were  to  have  no  end.  This  must  be  obvious  to  every 
man  who  considers  how  often  perpetual  is  applied  to 
things  which  have  ended,  and  to  things  also  which  we 
are  sure  are  to  end.  From  the  common  usage  of  this 
word,  we  ought  to  conclude  that  the  torments  of  the 
wicked  may  come  to  an  end  also.  But  as  nothing  is 
said  about  future  punishment  in  any  of  the  above 
texts,  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  with  any  further 
remarks  concerning  them.  I  may  just  add,  what  dif- 
ference can  it  make  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  w^ord 
oZm,  whether  we  render  it  everlasting  or  perpetual? 
Can  the  rendering  alter  the  true  sense  of  the  writer? 
2.  We  find  also,  that  olim  is  renedred  everlasting'. 
The  covenant  that  God  made  with  Noah  and  every 
living  creature,  is  called  "  the  everlasting  covenant," 
Gen.  ix.  16.  Also,  that  which  he  made  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  is  called  "  an  everlasting  covenant," 
Gen.  xvii.  7,  13,  19.  It  is  called  the  same  when  con- 
firmed to  Israel,  1  Chron.  xvi.  17  ;  Psalm  cv.  10  ; 
and  also  to  David,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  5.  And  it  is  said  of 
Israel,  Isai.  xxiv.  5,  that  they  had  "  broken  the  ever- 
lasting covenant."  In  the  following  places,  an  ever- 
lasting covenant  is  spoken  of,  and  seems  to  refer  to 
the  new  covenant,  Isai,  Iv.  3,  and  Ixi.  8  ;  Jer,  xxxii. 
40 ;  Ezek.  xvi.  60,  and  xxxvii.  26.  But  in  what- 
ever way  this  may  be  decided,  all  will  allow,  that  it 
must  end  when  Christ  delivers  up  the  kingdom  to  God 
the  father.  The  new  dispensation,  or  age  of  the  Mes- 
siah, is  not  called  everlasting  because  it  is  endless  in 
its  duration,  but  because  when  it  ends  it  is  to  be  suc- 
ceeded by  no  other.  But  further,  we  find  the  land  of 
Canaan  promised  to  Israel  for  "  an  everlasting  posses- 


208  AN    INC^UIRY PART    II. 

slon,"  Gen.  xvii.  8,  and  xlviii.  4.  The  priesthood 
given  to  Aaron  and  his  sons,  was  to  be  "  an  everlast- 
ing priesthood."  But  as  an  explanation  of  what  is 
meant,  it  is  added,  "  throughout  your  generations." — 
See  Exod.  xl.  15  ;  Numb.  xxv.  1.3.  Certain  things 
under  the  Aaronical  priesthood,  and  connected  with 
that  covenant,  though  temporary  in  its  duration,  were 
to  be  for  an  ^'  everlasting  statute,"  Levit.  xxiv.  8,  16, 
24.  In  Gen.  xlix.  26,  we  read  of  the  everlasting 
hills,  and  in  Hab.  iii.  6,  of  the  everlasting  mountains, 
and  in  Psalm  xxiv.  7,  9,  of  the  everlasting  doors,  pro- 
bably referring  to  the  doors  of  the  temple. 

Before  adducing  any  wore  of  the  texts  in  which 
olim  is  rendered  everlasting,  I  beg  leave  to  make  one 
or  two  remarks.  It  is  easily  perceived,  by  comparing 
these  texts  Vv'ith  those  where  olim  is  rendered  perpetu- 
al, that  everlasting  and  perpetual  express  the  same 
idea.  Further  ;  unless  we  can  prove  that  the  land  of 
Canaan,  the  statutes  and  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, the  hills  and  mountains,  and  the  doors  of 
the  temple,  are  to  continue  to  endless  duration,  we 
ought  not  to  say  that  the  word  everlasting  expresses  a 
proper  eternity.  We  [iresuine,  no  one  would  contend 
that  it  does,  but  gome  perhaps  would  say,  that  it  does 
express  the  endless  duration  of  the  new  covenant, 
mentioned  in  some  of  the  above  passages.  But  why 
should  it  any  more  mean  this  when  applied  to  it,  than 
when  applied  to  the  old  covenant,  which  was  called 
everlasting,  yet  has  long  ago  vanished?  Is  it  then 
asked,  What  does  everlasting  mean  in  the  above 
texts?  I  answer:  it  expresses  a  period  of  time,  long, 
indefinite,  and  limited.  Do  we  read  of  the  priesthood 
of  Aaron  being  everlasting?  We  find  this,  in  as  many 
words  limited,  for  it  is  added,  "  throughout  your  gene- 
rations."    In  a  word,  any  long  period  of  time,  either 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  209 

past,  or  to  come,  is  called  everlasting.  Yea,  we  shall 
see  before  we  are  done,  that  it  sometimes  expresses 
even  a  short  period  of  time.  Nor  are  the  sacred 
writers  under  any  apprehension  that  they  were  liable 
to  be  misunderstood.     But  to  return. 

We  find  further,  olim  rendered  everlasting,  and  ap- 
plied as  follows.  In  Isai.  xlv.  17,  it  is  said — "But 
Israel  shall  be  saved  in  the  Lord  with  an  everlasting 
salvation."  This  is  explained  by  what  follows:  '"'ye 
shall  not  be  ashamed  nor  confounded  world  without 
end."  See  this  text  noticed  before.  Daniel  ix.  24, 
speaks  of  an  "  everlasting  righteousness,"  and  David, 
Psalm  cxii.  6,  says,  "  the  righteous  shall  be  in  ever- 
lasting remembrance."  In  Prov.  x.  25,  they  are  also 
said  to  be  ''  an  everlasting  foundation."  David  prays, 
Psalm  cxxxix.  24,  "  lead  me  in  the  way  everlasting." 
And  in  Jer.  xxxi.  3,  God  says,  "  I  have  loved  thee 
with  an  everlasting  lo\^e."  And  in  Isaiah  Ix.  19,  20, 
it  is  twice  said  that  "  God  is  their  everlasting  light." 
And  in  Isai.  xxxv.  10,  they  shall  come  to  Zion  with 
"  everlasting  joy."  This  is  repeated,  li.  11,  and  Ixi.  7. 
In  Isai.  Ivi.  5,  God  is  said  to  give  them  an  "  everlast- 
ing name,"  and  to  have  made  to  himself ''  an  everlast- 
ing name,"  Isai.  Ixiii.  12.  In  Isai.  Iv.  13,  we  read  of 
an  "  everlasting  sign,"  and  by  way  of  explanation  it 
is  added,  "  which  shall  not  be  cut  off."  And  in  Isai, 
liv.  8,  we  read  of  God's  "  everlasting  kindness." — 
Speaking  of  the  Jews,  God  threatened  that  he  would 
bring  upon  them  "  an  everlasting  reproach."  Jer.  xxiii. 
40.  And  in  Jer.  xx.  11,  it  is  added,  ''their  ever- 
lasting confusion  shall  never  be  forgotten."  By  con- 
sulting the  context  of  these  last  two  texts  it  may  be 
seen  that  God  is  not  speaking  of  punishment  to  the 
Jews  in  a  future  state,  but  of  his  temporal  judgments 
in  the  present  world.     Notwithstanding  this,  their  pun- 


210  AN    INQUIRE PART    II. 

ishment  is  called  everlasting.  This  we  have  shown, 
in  the  inquiry  into  the  words  Sheol,  he,  which  see. 
See  also  on  2  Thess.  chap,  i.,  below. 

We  come  now  to  a  part  of  this  Inquiry  where  olim 
is  rendered  everlasting,  and  is  applied  to  God  himself. 
Such  texts,  then,  demand  the  closest  attention.  I  find 
it  then  said,  Gen.  xxi.  33,  that  Abraham  ''  called  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  the  everlasting  God,"  In  Isai. 
xl.  28,  he  is  again  called  the  "  everlasting  God." — 
in  Deut.  xxxiii.  27,  we  read  of  his  "  everlasting  arms." 
In  Psalm  xc.  2,  it  is  said  "  even  from  everlasting  to 
everlasting  thou  art  God."  And  in  Jer.  x.  10,  he  is 
called  "  an  everlasting^  kini!;."  In  Psalm  c.  5,  it  is 
said,  ^'his  mercy  is  everlasting."  In  ciii.  17,  it  is 
added,  "  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to 
everlasting."  But  by  way  of  explanation,  it  is  said, 
"his  righteousness  unto  childrens'  children."  In  xli. 
13,  it  is  said,  "  blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 
from  everlasting,  and  to  everlasting."  This  is  re- 
peated, Psalm  cvi.  48.  Again,  it  is  said.  Psalm  xciii. 
2,  "  thou  art  from  everlasting,"  but  in  the  first  part  of 
the  verse  it  was  said  as  an  equivalent  expression — 
"thy  throne  is  established  of  old."  In  Isai.  Ixiii.  16, 
it  is  said — "  thy  name  is  from  everlasting,"  and  Psalrri 
cxlv.  13,  David  says,  "  thy  kingdom  is  an  everlasting 
kingdom  ;"  but  observe,  it  is  added  by  way  of  expia- 
tion, "  and  thy  dominion  endureth  throughout  all  gene- 
rations." In  the  margin  our  translators  have  put,  "of 
all  ages."  And  in  Isaiah  xxvi.  4,  it  is  said,  "  in  the 
Lord  Jehovah  is  everlasting  strength,"  but  in  the  mar- 
gin they  have  put,  "  rock  of  ages."  These  are  all 
the  passages  where  olim  is  rendered  everlasting  and 
applied  to  God.  There  are  two  passages  where  it  is 
so  rendered,  and  applied  to  the  Messiah.  The  first  is 
Mic.  V.  2,  "  whose  goings  forth  hath  been  from  of  old, 


AN    INQ.UIRY PART    II.  211 

from  everlasting."  See,  on  this  text.  Professor  Stuart's 
remarks  quoted.  Sect.  i.  Here, /rom  of  old  and  ever- 
lasting are  used  as  synonymous  expressions  for  the 
same  thing.  This  is  similar  to  Psalm  xciii.  2,  noticed 
above.  The  other  text  is  Prov.  viii.  23,  ''  1  was  set 
up  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the 
earth  was."  Here,  what  is  called  everlasting  in  the 
first  part,  is  explained  in  the  second  to  be,  "  from  the 
beginning."  Has  everlasting  or  a  proper  eternity  a 
be^innino-  ? 

3d.  We  find  olim  rendered  for  evermore  in  the  fol- 
lowing places.  Thus  it  is  said.  Psalm  xcii.  8,  "  but 
thou.  Lord,  art  most  high  for  evermore."  And  cxiii. 
2,  "  blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord  from  this  time 
forth  and  for  evermore,"  And  cxv.  18,  "but  we  will 
bless  the  Lord  from  this  time  forth  and  for  evermore.^' 
Again  it  is  said,  2  Sam.  xxii.  51,  the  Lord  "  showeth 
mercy  to  his  annointed,  unto  David,  and  to  his  seed 
for  ev^ermore."  This  is  repeated,  Psalm  xviii.  50. — 
In  1  Chron.  xvii.  14.  God  promised  that  Solomon's 
throne  ''  should  be  established  for  evermore."  And 
Psalm  cxxi.  8,  he  promised  to  preserve  Israel  "  for  ever- 
more." And  cxxxiii.  3,  to  command  "  the  blessing 
for  evermore."  In  Ezek.  xxxvii.  26,  28,  he  also  prom- 
ised to  set  his  sanctuary  in  the  midst  of  Israel  "  for 
evermore."  And  in  Psalm  xxxvii.  27,  David  says, 
^'  depart  from  evil  and  do  good,  and  dwell  for  ever- 
more." And  in  Ixxxvi.  12,  says,  "  I  will  glorify  thy 
oame  for  evermore."  The  only  other  text  in  which 
olim  is  rendered  for  evermore,  is  Psalm  cvi.  31,  and 
is  thus  explained.  Speaking  of  Phineas,  it  is  said, 
ithat  what  he  did  "  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteous- 
ness, unto  all  generations  for  ever  more."  Here  all 
generations  and  for  evermore  are  used  as  equivalent 
expressions  for  the  same  thing.      On   the  whole  of 


21 2f  AN    INQUIRY ^^PART    II* 

these  texts  we  remark,  that  evermore  is  applied  to 
things  which  never  were  intended  to  continue  to  end- 
less duration.  Such  were  Solomon's  throne,  and  God's 
sanctuary  among  the  children  of  Israel.  A  long  pe- 
riod may  be  meant,  but  not  surely  a  proper  eternity. 
Even  when  evermore  is  applied  to  God,  we  cannot 
conclude  that  it  signifies  endless  duration  ;  for  it  is  ex- 
plained to  mean,  "all  generations."  In  none  of  these 
texts  is  evermore  applied  to  punishment.  No  further 
notice  need  then  be  taken  of  them  here,  as  any  further 
remarks  will  be  more  in  place  afterwards. 

4th.  Olim  is  rendered  forever,  in  the  following^ 
places,  and  expresses  the  duration  of  a  man's  lifetime, 
or  even  a  shorter  period.  Thus  it  is  said,  Deut.  xv» 
17,  ^^  thou  shalt  take  an  awl  and  thrust  it  through  his 
ear  unto  the  door,  and  he  shall  be  thy  servant  forever."" 
iVow,  this  could  only  mean  all  the  servant's  lifetime, 
or,  perhaps  to  the  year  of  jubilee.  It  could  not  be  be- 
yond his  life,  for  at  death  the  servant  is  free  from  his 
master.  The  same  thing  is  said  Exod.  xxi.  6.  But 
again,  we  find  Samuel's  mother  saying,  1  Sam.  i.  22, 
"  1  will  not  go  up  until  the  child  be  weaned,  and  then 
I  will  bring  him,  that  he  may  appear  before  the  Lord, 
and  abide  there  forever."  Here,  forever  can  mean  nc 
more  than  all  the  days  of  Samuel's  life.  Again  ;  Jona- 
dab  commanded  his  children  that  they  should  drink 
"no  more  wine  forever."  Jer.  xxxv.  6.  Does  not 
this  simply  mean,  all  their  days,  or  at  farthest,  through- 
out their  generation  ?  And  is  not  something  similar 
meant,  when  Achish  said  of  David,  I  Sam.  xxvii.  12, 
"he  shall  be  my  servant  forever?"  And  also  Levit. 
XXV.  46,  where  it  is  said,  strangers  shall  be  to  Israel 
"  bondmen  forever."  And  2  Kings  v.  27,  it  is  said, 
that  the  leprosy  was  to  cleave  to  Naaman  "  forever." 
But  who  ever  thought  this  man  was  to  be  a  leper  to 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  213 

the  endlesss  ages  of  eternity?  In  Job  xli.  4,  speak- 
ing of  leviathan,  it  is  said,  "wilt  thou  take  him  for  a 
servant  forever."  There  is  one  text  which  deserves 
particular  notice,  because  it  is  the  first  time  in  which 
the  word  olim  is  used  in  the  Bible,  and  is  rendered  for- 
ever. Thus  it  is  said,  Gen.  iii.  22,  "  and  now  lest  he 
put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life, 
and  eat  and  live  forever,"  therefore  God  drove  forth 
the  man  from  the  garden.  On  this  text  let  us  hear 
Dr.  Kennicot,  the  great  Hebrew  scholar  of  his  day. 
He  says,  dissert,  i.  p.  83,  "  A  third  objection  may  be 
made  to  the  rendering  of  the  word  lolim,  in  chap.  iii. 
22 — that  it  is  made  to  signify  the  days  of  Adamh  life 
only,  and  not  forever,  fn  answer  to  this,  I  observe 
that  the  word  ovlim  is  used  as  often,  perhaps,  finitely 
as  infinitely  ;  and  that  it  can  signify  nothing  more  than 
the  age  or  life  of  man,  in  places  where  our  translators 
have  frequently  rendered  \i  forever.  Thus  Exod.  xxi, 
6 — '  Then  his  master  shall  bring  him  unto  the  judges, 
and  he  shall  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl,  and  he 
shall  serve  him  forever.'  And  1  Sam.  i.  22,  '  but  Han- 
nah went  not  up ;  for  she  said,  I  will  not  go  up  until 
the  child  be  weaned ;  and  then  I  will  bring  him,  that 
he  may  appear  before  the  Lord,  and  there  abide  for- 
ever.' "  But  further,  we  find  Bathsheba  says,  1  Kings 
i.  31,  -'Let  my  lord  king  David  live  forever."  And 
in  Neh.  ii.  3,  he  says  to  king  Artaxerxes,  ''  Let  the 
king  live  forever."  See  the  same  or  similar  language, 
Dan.  ii.  4  ;  iii.  9;  v.  10,  and  vi.  6,  21.  All  meant 
in  these  texts  is,  let  the  king's  life  be  long,  or  the 
years  of  his  life  be  many.  The  persons  never  sup- 
posed that  kings  could  live  to  the  endless  ages  of  eter- 
nity. In  Exod.  xiv.  13,  it  is  said  to  Israel,  that  the 
Egyptians  whom  they  saw  to-day,  they  should  see 
"  no  more  forever."     No  more  can   be  meant,  than 


214  AN    INQUIRY PART     lU 

that  they  should  not  see  them  again,  and  the  reason  is 
obvious,  for  they  were  all  to  be  drowned  in  the  sea. 

In  the  following  texts  we  find  certain  places  are 
said  to  be  forever,  which  cannot  mean  that  they  shall 
continue  to  endless  duration.  In  Eccles.  i.  4,  it  is  said, 
"  the  earth  abideth  forever."  And  Psalm  civ.  5,  "  who 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  that  they  should  not 
be  removed  forever."  And  Psalm  lxxviii.69.  "  He 
built  his  sanctuary  like  high  palaces,  like  the  earth 
which  he  hath  established  forever."  God  is  said  to 
give  the  land  of  Canaan  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  that 
they  should  dwell  in  it  forever  :  and  David  be  their 
prince  forever.  See  Ezek.  xxxvii.  25.  In  all  the 
following  texts  the  land  of  Canaan  is  expressly  said  to 
be  forever  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  See  Gen.  xiii. 
15  ;  Exod.  xxxii.  13  ;  1  Chron.  xxviii.  8  ;  2  Chron. 
XX.  7;  tsai.  Ix.  21  ;  Josh.  xiv.  9.  This  last  text  re- 
fers to  that  part  of  the  land  given  to  Caleb,  which  was 
to  be  his,  and  his  children's  forever.  And  are  not  some 
lands  deeded  away  forever  now  in  a  similar  senfe  ? — 
Israel  is  commanded,  not  to  seek  the  peace,  nor  the 
wealth  of  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  forever,  Ezra  ix. 
12.  In  Deut.  xxiii.  6,  we  have  the  same  injunction 
repeated,  and  it  is  added,  "  all  thy  days  forever." — 
Here  all  thy  days  diU^  forever  are  used  to  express  the 
same  period  of  time,  and  simply  mean  throughout  the 
generations  of  Israel.  Is  was  a  sign  between  the  Lord 
and  Israel  forever,  that  in  six  days  God  made  heaven 
and  earth,  and  rested  on  the  seventh,  Exod.  xxxi.  17. 
The  children  of  Israel  dwelling  in  Canaan,  or  inher- 
iting it  forever,  is  contrary  to  fact.  For  nearly  two 
thousand  years  the  Jews  have  been  cast  out  of  it,  and 
should  they  return  to-day,  and  dwell  in  it  as  long  as 
this  earth  shall  continue,  yet  unless  the  world  is  to  be 
of  endless  duration,  forever  does  not  express  an  infinite 


AN    INQUIRY PART    11.  215 

period  of  time.  It  is  further  said,  1  Chron.  xxiii.  25, 
the  Lord  God  of  Israel  hath  given  rest  unto  his  people, 
that  they  may  dwell  in  Jerusalem  forever."  And  in 
Jer.  xvii.  25,  it  is  said,  "  and  this  city  shall  remain  for- 
ever." And  referring  to  it,  David  says,  Psalm  xlviii. 
8,  "  God  will  establish  it  forever."  And  in  Jer.  xxxi. 
40,  it  is  said,  "  it  shall  not  be  plucked  up,  nor  thrown 
down  any  more  forever."  And  in  Psalm  cxxv.  1,  it 
is  said,  "  they  that  trust  in  the  Lord  shall  be  like  mount 
Zion,  which  cannot  be  removed,  but  abideih  forever." 
And  referring  to  the  temple,  Solomon  says,  1  Kings 
viii.  13.  ''I  have  surely  built  thee  a  house  to  dwell 
in,  a  settled  place  for  thee  to  abide  in  forever."  For 
substance  repeated,  2  Chron.  vi.  2.  And  in  2  Chron. 
XXX.  8,  it  is  said  to  be  "  sanctified  forever."  But  what 
is  meant  by  Jerusalem  remaining  "  forever,"  is  ex- 
plained thus,  Joel  iii.  20,  "but  Judah  shall  dwell  for- 
ever, and  Jerusalem  from  generation  to  gejierationJ' 
Again,  Josh.  viii.  28,  it  is  said,  '"Joshua  burnt  Ai  and 
made  it  an  heap  forever."  It  is  added,  by  way  of 
explanation,  "  even  a  desolation  unto  this  day."  And 
of  Babylon  it  is  said,  Isai.  xlvii.  7,  "I  shall  be  a  lady 
forever."  But  God  says  concerning  this  city,  Jer.  li. 
26,  "  thou  shalt  be  desolate  forever."  And  verse  62, 
it  is  added,  "  none  shall  remain  in  it,  neither  man  or 
beast,  but  it  shall  be  desolate  forever."  Of  Hazorand 
other  cities  it  is  said,  they  "  shall  be  a  dwelling  for  dra- 
gons, and  a  desolation  forever :  there  shall  no  man 
abide  there,  nor  any  son  of  man  dwell  in  it,"  Jer.  xlix. 
33,  And  of  another  place  it  is  said,  "  the  smoke 
thereof  shall  go  up  forever,"  and  that  the  wild  beasts 
''shall  possess  it  forever,"  Isai,  xxxiv.  14,  17.  The 
explanation  of  forever  in  the  last  text  is  given  thus  : 
"from  generation  to  generation  it  shall  lie  waste,"  and 
"  from  generation  to  generation  wild  beasts  shall  dwell 


216  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

therein."  See  verses  8 — 17.  In  Psalm  xlix.  11,  it 
is  said,  that  the  inward  thought  of  the  wicked  is,  that 
their  houses  shall  continue  "  forever."  But  the  expla- 
nation given  is — "  and  their  dwelling-places  to  all 
generations." 

The  word  olim  is  rendered  forever,  and  applied  in  a 
variety  of  ways  to  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the  Mo- 
saic dispensation.  It  was  a  statute  "  forever  through- 
out their  generations,"  that  they  should  not  sacrifice 
their  children  to  devils,  Levit.  xvii.  7.  Nor  eat  of  the 
fruits  of  the  land,  until  they  had  brought  a  part  of  it 
unto  the  Lord,  Levit.  xxiii.  14.  It  was  an  ordinance 
forever  throughout  their  generations,  that  the  stranger 
and  the  children  of  Israel  were  to  be  alike  in  offering 
certain  offerings  to  the  Lord,  Num.  xv.  15  and  xix.  10. 
It  was  also  a  statute  "forever  unto  their  generations," 
that  Aaron  and  his  sons  should  enjoy  certain  things, 
and  perform  certain  parts  of  service,  Exod.  xxvii.  21  ; 
Levit.  xxiv.  3  ;  Exod.  xxviii.  43  ;  xxix.  28,  and  xxx. 
21;  Levit.  vi.  18,  22;  vii.  34,  36,  and  x.  9,  15; 
Numb.  X.  8,  and  xviii.  8,  11,  19,  23  ;  1  Chron.  xv. 
2,  and  xxiii.  13  ;  2  Chron.  ii.  4  ;  Exod.  xii.  14  ;  comp. 
verses  17,  2i  ;  Levit.  xxiii.  41  ;  Comp.  verses  33 — 
41  ;  Levit.  xvi.  31  ;  Comp.  verse  29,  and  xxiii.  31. 
The  laws  and  ordinances  enjoined  in  these  texts,  all 
relate  to  the  old  dispensation,  which  has  vanislied  away. 
But  all  must  see,  they  were  to  be  observed  "  forever," 
and  the  fact  shows  that  endless  duration  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  meant  by  this  expression.  The  children  of 
Israel  were  a  peculiar  people,  separated  from  all  other 
nations,  and  for  certain  im[)ortant  purposes,  which 
would  be  aside  from  our  present  purpose  to  detail. — 
Such  laws  and  ordinances  were  to  be  observed  by  them 
"  forever,"  and  this  forever  was  as  long  as  they  existed 
as  a  nation,  and  until  the  purposes  of  God  were  an- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  217 

swered  by  them.  Hence  "in  your  generations,"  and 
"  throughout  your  generations,"  or  some  similar  ex- 
planatory expression  is  u'^ed.  Both  seem  to  express, 
the  coniinued  practice  of  those  laws  and  ordinances, 
but  not  tlie  endless  duration  of  their  observance.  This 
law  was  added  because  of  transgression  "  till  the  seed 
should  come."  In  the  hope  of  the  promise  of  the  Mes- 
siah being  fulfilled,  the  twelve  tribes,  instantly  serving 
God  day  and  night,  hoped  to  come.  When  Christ 
had  fulfilled  all  that  was  written  of  him,  it  was  virtually 
abolished,  and  Paul  declared  in  his  day,  it  had  waxed 
old  and  was  ready  to  vanish  away.  The  "  forever" 
was  bounded  by  this  period,  and  this  was  even  a  longer 
forever  than  some  others  spoken  of  in  Scripture. 

In  the  following  lexis,  fo rev ej'  seems  to  express  a 
long,  indefinite  period  of  time,  but  not  endless  duration. 
In  Exod.  xix.  9,  the  reason  given  for  God's  speaking 
to  Moses  in  a  cloud  is,  that  the  people  might  believe 
him  '-  forever."  But  does  forever  mean  any  thing 
more,  than  that  Moses  might  be  believed  by  all  the 
future  generations  of  Israel.  It  is  also  said,  Ezek.  xliii. 
7,  that  God  is  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  Israel  "  forever." 
But  can  this  signify  to  endless  duration  ?  Can  it  mean 
any  thing  more  than  what  is  said  so  often  by  way  of 
explanation,  "  from  generation  to  generation,"  or 
throughout  their  generations?  See  also  verse  9.  Da- 
vid says  of  God's  commandments,  that  they  were 
''  ever  with  him,"  Psalm  cxix.  98.  But  does  this  mean 
any  thing  more  than  a  continuance  in  them  ?  But 
further,  had  Saul  obeyed  the  Lord,  Samuel  told  him 
that  the  Lord  would  have  estabhshed  his  kingdom  upon 
Israel  "  forever,"  I  Sam.  xiii.  13.  But  I  ask  every 
candid  man,  did  not  Samuel  mean  that  the  kingdom 
would  have  been  hereditary  in  Saul's  family,  or  as  the 
Scriptures  say,  he  should  not  have  wanted  -'  a  man  to 


218  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

sit  on  the  throne  ?"  David,  on  whom  Saul's  kingdom 
was  bestowed,  says,  that  God  chose  him  before  all  the 
house  of  his  father  "  to  be  a  kino-  over  Israel  forever," 

1  Chron.  xxviii.  4.  But  did  David  mean,  that  he  and 
his  seed  should  sit  to  endless  duration  on  a  throne  in 
Israel  ?  Is  not  the  meaning  simply  this — that  the 
kingdom  should  be  hereditary  in  his  family  so  long  as 
Israel  existed  as  a  nation  ?  We  think  this  is  evident 
from  2  Chron.  xiii.  5,  where  it  is  said,  "ought  ye  not 
to  know,  that  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  gave  the  king- 
dom over  Israel  to  David  forever,  even  to  him  and  his 
sons  by  a  covenant  of  salt  ?"  Comp.  2  Chron.  ix.  8. 
Besides,  notice  what  is  said.  Psalm  Ixxxix.  4,  in  con- 
firmation of  this,  and  in  explanation  of  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase  "  forever."  It  is  said,  "  thy  seed  will  I  es- 
tablish forever;"  but  it  is  added,  "and  build  up  thy 
throne  to  all  generations."  All  generations  is  surely 
not  endless  duration  !  Admitting  that  this  ultimately 
referred  to  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  be  of  the  seed  of 
David,  yet  it  was  understood  of  David's  descendants. 
This  seems  evident  from  similar  things  beinsf  said  of 
Solomon.     See   1   Chron.  xvii.  23;   1  Kings  ii.  45  ; 

2  Sam.  vii.  13,  16,  25;  1  Chron.  xxii.  10,  and  xxviii. 
7,  which  I  need  not  transcribe.  It  is  also  evident  from 
the  intrigues  and  attempts  of  David's  sons  and  others 
to  usurp  the  throne.  The  same  is  said  of  the  Messiah, 
Isai.  ix.  7,  "  of  the  increase  of  his  government  and 
peace  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David, 
and  upon  his  kingdom  to  order  it  and  to  establish  it 
with  judgment  and  with  justice  from  henceforth  even 
forever."  But  even  when  forever  is  applied  to  him, 
we  doubt  if  this  expresses  the  endless  duration  of  his 
reign,  but  simply  expresses  that  it  shall  never  give  place 
to  any  other  in  this  world.  One  or  two  of  our  reasons 
for  thinking  so  we  shall  only  here  state. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  219 

1st.  If  "  forever,"  and  "  no  end,"  in  this  passage, 
means  endless  duration,  it  must  be  allowed  that  this 
world  must  also  continue  to  endless  duration.  Is  it 
asked  how  I  make  this  appear  ?  I  answer,  that  it  is 
plainly  said,  that  of  the  increase  of  his  government 
there  shall  be  no  end.  But  how  is  this  to  take  place 
if  this  world  is  to  end  ?  The  increase  of  his  govern- 
ment takes  place  in  this  world,  nor  does  any  one  refer 
its  increase  to  a  period  after  it  ends.  Either  then  this 
world  has  no  end,  but  thall  continue  to  afford  an  in- 
crease of  subjects  to  Messiah's  kingdom,  or  forever,  and 
no  end,  here  do  not  mean  endless  duration.  We 
never  heard  of  any  increase  of  subjects  to  Christ's  king- 
dom but  while  this  world  continued. 

2d,  Christ's  kingdom,  or  his  reign,  is  represented 
like  the  duration  of  the  sun  or  the  host  of  heaven. — 
Psalm  Ixxii.  is  allowed  to  refer  to  him.  In  verse  19, 
it  is  said,  and  blessed  be  his  glorious  name.  And  in 
verse  17  we  find  it  said,  his  name  shall  endure  forever. 
If  we  ask,  how  long  a  time  this  forever  is,  we  find  it 
answered  thus — his  name  shall  be  continued  as  long  as 
the  sun.  Again  :  it  is  said,  Psalm  Ixxxix.  29,  his  seed 
also  will  I  make  to  endure  forever.  But  it  is  added — 
and  his  throne  as  the  days  of  heaven.  And  in  verses 
36,  37,  we  find  it  said — his  seed  shall  endure  forever, 
but  it  is  again  subjoined  by  way  of  explanation — And 
his  throne  as  the  sun  before  me.  It  shall  be  establish- 
ed forever  as  the  moon.  We  think  these  texts  limit 
the  meaning  of  forever  to  the  duration  of  the  sun  and 
moon,  and  the  Messiah's  reign  also  to  this  period.  This 
seems  to  be  in  agreement  with  what  is  said  1  Cor.  xv. 
24 — 29,  that  when  Christ  hath  subdued  all  things,  he 
shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God  the  father,  that  he 
may  be  all  in  all.  This  period  is  called  the  end  and 
succeeds  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 


220  AN    INQUIRY — PART    II. 

I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  objected — "  if  forever  is 
thus  limited  to  the  end  of  this  world,  will  it  not  follow 
that  Christ's  seed  must  end,  for  they  are  said  to  endure 
forever,  which  according  to  this  view  is  only  as  long  as 
the  sun  and  moon  endureth?"  I  answer,  that  this  does 
not  follow,  for  Christ  at  this  period  is  to  deliver  up  the 
kingdom  to  God  the  father  and  surely  this  kingdom  in- 
cludes the  subjects  or  Christ's  seed.  If  delivered  up  to 
God,  no  one  thinks  that  this  is  for  the  purpose  of  being 
annihilated,  or  to  suffer  endless  punishment. 

But  further,  David  prays,  that  his  house  might  con- 
tinue blessed  before  God  "  forever."  2  Sam,  vii.  29  ; 
1  Chron.  xvii.  27.  God  promised  to  establish  the 
throne  of  Solomon  forever,  1  Kings  ix.  5.  David  de- 
clares himself  guiltless  before  the  Lord  forever  from  the 
blood  of  x\bner,  2  Sam.  iii.  28  ;  Comp.  1  Kings  ii.  23. 
His  kindness  was  not  to  be  cut  off  from  the  house  of 
Jonathan  forever,  1  Sam.  xx.  15;  Comp.  verse  42. — 
But  could  any  thing  more  be  meant  by  forever,  than 
so  long  as  his  house  existed?  Israel  was  to  be  unto 
God  a  people  forever,  2  Sam.  vii.  24.  See  also  1 
Chron.  xvii.  22.  Things  revealed,  belonged  to  them 
and  their  children  forever,  Deut.  xxix.  29.  And  if 
they  obeyed  God,  it  should  go  well  with  them  and  their 
children  forever,  Deut.  xii.  28,  and  by  so  doing,  they 
would  leave  the  land  unto  their  children  for  an  inher- 
itance forever,  Ezra  ix.  12.  And  if  ihey  did  not  obey 
the  Lord,  the  curses  in  the  law  should  be  upon  them 
for  a  sign  and  for  a  wonder  forever,  Deut.  xxviii.  46, 
Again  ;  an  Ammonite  or  Moabite  was  not  to  enter  ^nto 
the  congregation  of  the  Lord  forever;  and  this  is  ex- 
plained to  be,  to  the  tenth  generation,  Deut.  xxiii.  3  ; 
Nehem.  xiii.  1.  The  stones  set  up  at  Jordan,  were  to 
be  a  memorial  unto  the  children  of  Israel  forever,  Josh. 
Iv,  7.     But  did  any  man  ever  think  that  these  stones 


AN     INQUIRY PART    II.  221 

were  to  stand  there  to  the  endless  ages  of  eternity  ?  If 
we  understand  forever  to  mean,  as  often  explained, 
from  generation  to  generation,  or  throughout  the  gene- 
rations of  Israel,  no  difficulty  is  perceived ;  but  to  un- 
derstand it  of  endless  duration,  is  absurd.     Again;  the 
Lord  had  said  that  the  house  of  Eli  should  walk  before 
him  forever,  1  Sam.  ii.  30.     But  his  conduct  and  that 
of  his  sons  was  such,  that  God  says,  1  Sam.  iii.  13,  14, 
"  I  will  judge  his  house  forever."     And  that  "  the 
iniquity  of  his  house  shall  not  be  purged  with  sacrifice 
nor   burnt  offerings  forever."     Some   may  think  that 
their  sins  were  unpardonable.     No  ;  what  seems  sim- 
ply meant,  is,  that  no  sacrifice  or  burnt  offering  could 
avail,  so  as  to  preserve  the  priesthood  in   Eli's  family. 
Again  ;  Israel  is  commanded  to  hope  in  the  Lord  for- 
ever. Psalm  cxxxi.  3.     And  in  cxxv.  2,  the  Lord  is 
said  to  be  round  about  them  forever ;  and  xxviii.  9. — 
David  prays  that  God  would  lift  up  his  people  forever. 
And  in   1  Chron.  xxix.  18,  that  he  would  keep  what 
is  right  in  their  hearts  forever.     And  Psalm  xii.  7,  that 
he  would  preserve  them  from  this  generation  forever. 
And  xxxvii.  18  says,  that  the  inheritance  of  the  right- 
eous shall  be  forever.     And  verse  28,  that  they  are 
preserved  forever.     And  xli.  12,  that  God  set  him  be- 
fore' his   face   forever.     And  Ixxiii.  26,  that  God  was 
his  portion   forever.     And  it  is  said,  Isai.  xxxii.  17, 
that  the  effect  of  righteousness  was  to  be  ''  quietness 
and   assurance  forever."     In  Psalm  xxx.   12,  David 
says,  "  I- will  give  thanks  unto  thee  forever."     And  in 
xliv.  8,  that  he  would  "praise  God's  name  forever." 
See  also  Iii.  9.      In  Ixxix.   13,  he    says,   "  we  will 
give  thee  thanks  forever,"  but  adds,  as  an  explanation, 
"  we  will  show  forth  thy  praise  to  all  generations." — 
And  Ixxv,  9,  he  says,  "  I  will  declare  forever,"  and 
explains  himself  thus—""  1  will  sing  praises  to  the  God 
15 


2*22  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

of  Jacob."  But  further,  in  Psalm  cxii.  6,  David  says, 
a  good  man  "  shall  not  be  moved  forever."  In  cxix. 
Ill,  that  be  bad  taken  God's  testimonies  "  as  an  heri- 
tage forever."  And  verse  152,  ''that  God  had  found- 
ed them  forever."  In  Psalm  v.  11,  he  says,  "let them 
that  put  their  trust  in  the  Lord  ever  shout  for  joy." — 
Psalm  Ixi.  4,  David  says,  "I  will  abide  in  thy  taber- 
nacle forever."  Ahd  God  says,  Hosea  ii.  19,  "  I  will 
betroth  thee  unto  me  forever."  Psalm  xlv.  2,  and 
probably  speaking  of  the  Messiah,  it  is  said,  "  God  hath 
blessed  thee  forever."  And  in  Isai,  lix.  21,  it  is  de- 
clared, that  God's  word  was  not  to  depart  from  him 
nor  his  seed  "  forever."  And  Psalm  Ixi.  7,  that  he 
shall  abide  before  God  "forever."  But  comparing 
verse  6  forever  is  explained  thus — '"  thou  wilt  ])rolong 
the  king's  life  ;  and  his  years  as  many  generations." 
In  the  ujargin  it  is  "  as  generation  and  generation." — 
Comp.  Psalm  Ixxxix.  36,  37,  and  1  Chron.  xvii.  14, 
In  1  Kings  x.  9,  it  is  said,  God  "  loved  Israel  forever." 
And  in  Deut.  v.  29,  that  by  "obeying  him  it  would 
be  well  with  them  and  their  children  forever."  But 
again,  speaking  of  God's  temporal  judgments,  it  is  said, 
Joel  ii.  2,  to  be  a  day  "  there  hath  not  been  ever  the 
like."  And  of  the  dead  it  is  said,  Eccles.  ix.  6,  that 
they  have  no  more  a  portion  "  forever"  in  any  thing 
done  under  the  sun.  Speaking  of  the  descendants  of 
Esau,  it  is  said,  Obad.  10,  that  they  shall  be  cut  off 
forever.  Jonah  says,  ii.  6,  that  the  bars  of  the  earth 
were  about  him  /oret'tr.  In  Zach.  i,  5,  the  question 
is  asked  concerning  the  prophets.  Do  they  \\vq  forever  1 
If  forever  is  asserted  to  mean  endless  duration,  it  is 
li;ere  strongly  implied  that  the  prophets  do  not  live  for- 
ever. But  the  question  here  simply  means,  do  the 
prophets  live  to  all  generations.  It  is  said  of  some, 
Psalm  Ixxxi.  15,  that  "  their  time  should  have  endured 


AN    1NQ,UIR1' PART    II.  223 

forever."  And  Solomon,  Eccles.  ii.  16,  says-— '' There 
is  no  remembrance  of  the  wise  more  than  of  the  fool 
forever."  And  David  says,  Psalm  xlix.  8,  "  the  redemp-* 
tion  of  the  soul,  or  the  natural  life  from  death,  it 
ceaseth  forever."  And  in  Prov.  xxvii.  24,  it  is  said  of 
riches — "  they  are  not  forever  ;"  but  the  common  ex- 
planation is  added—"  And  doth  the  crown  endure  to 
every  generation, '^ 

But  I  find  olim  rendered  forever,  applied  to  God  in 
a  variety  of  ways.  These  texts  demand  the  closest 
attention,  for  it  is  in  consequence  of  this,  that  it  is  con- 
sidered as  expressing  endless  duration.  Can  it  mean 
any  thing  less  than  this,  say  some,  seeing  it  is  applied 
to  him  who  had  no  beginning,  and  who  shall  have  no 
end  ?  This  may  be  true,  but  it  ought  not  to  be  ad- 
mitted without  sufficient  evidence,  seeing  this  same 
word  is  applied  to  so  many  things  which  all  allow  are 
not  of  endless  duration,  We  shall  therefore  give  this 
part  of  the  subject  all  the  care  and  attention  we  can 
command.  Olim,  then,  is  rendered  forever  and  ap^ 
plied 

To  the  existence  of  God.  Thus  in  Deut.  xxxii.  40, 
God  says,  ^'  I  live  forever."  And  in  Psalm  ix.  7, 
''  The  Lord  shall  endure  forever."  And  cH.  12,  "  thou, 
O  Lord,  shalt  endure  forever,"  but  observe,  it  is  added, 
by  way  of  explanation,  '^  and  thy  remembrance  unto 
all  generations."  In  Lam.  v.  19,  it  is  said,  •'  thou,  O 
Lord,  remainest  forever  ;"  but  the  common  explanation 
is  again  given,  for  it  is  added,  '^  and  thy  throne  from 
generation  to  generation.''  And  it  is  said,  Eccles.  iii. 
14,  That  ^'  whatsoever  God  doeth  it  shall  be  forever." 
It  is  also  applied  to  his  name  or  character  in  generaL 
Thus  it  is  said,  Exod.  iii.  15,  ^'  This  is  my  name  for-? 
ever,"  and  explained  thus,  '^  and  this  is  my  memorial 
wnlQ  ^n  ge.neriition§,'-     His  character;  naipe  or  glor^; 


224  AN    INQUIRY PART   II, 

are  the  same.  Hence  it  is  said,  Psalm  civ.  31,  'Mhe 
glory  of  the  Lord  shall  endure  forever."     And  Mic.  ii. 

9,  God  complains  that  his  glory  was  taken  away  from 
some  "forever."  In  2  Sam.  vii.  26,  it  is  said,  "let 
thy  name  be  magnified  forever:"  and  is  repeated  1 
Chron.  xvii.  24.  In  Psalm  cxxxv.  13,  it  is  said,  "  thy 
name,  O  Lord,  endureth  forever;"  but  observe  it  is 
added  again  as  an  explanation,  "and  thy  memorial, O 
Lord,  throughout  all  generations."  In  the  margin  "  to 
generation  and  generation."  In  all  the  following  pas- 
sages, which  I  need  not  transcribe,  God  is  spoken  of 
as  putting  his  name  in  his  house  "  forever."  1  Kings 
ix,  3  ;  2  Chron.  vii.  16  ;  2  Kings  xxi.  7  ;  2  Chron. 
xxxiii.  4,  7.  But  to  proceed,  we  find /orci-er  applied 
to  his  truth.  Thus  it  is  said.  Psalm  cxvii.  2,  "  The 
truth  of  the  Lord  endureth  forever."  And  in  Psalm 
cxlvi.  6,  "  that  he  keepeth  truth  forever."  An  in  Isai. 
xl.  8,  "  the  word  of  God  shall  stand  forever."  It  is 
also  applied  to  his  faithjulness.  Accordingly,  it  is 
said,  Psalm  cv.  8,  "  He  hath  remembered  his  covenant 
forever."  What  follows  by  way  of  explanation  de- 
serves particular  notice  ;  "  The  word  which  he  com- 
manded to   a    thousand    crenerations."      A    thousand 

o 

generations  is  a  long  period  of  time,  but  it  is  not  eter- 
nity. Again,  it  is  said,  Psalm  cxi.  9,  '  He  hath  com- 
manded his  covenant  forever."  And  verse  5,  "  He 
will  ever  be  mindful  of  his  covenant."  It  is  also  ap- 
plied to  his  reign  and  power.  Thus  it  is  said.  Psalm 
Ixvi.  7,  "  He  ruleth  by  his  power  forever."  And  xxix. 

10,  "  The  Lord  sitteih  king  forever."  In  Mic.  iv.  7, 
it  is  said  of  Israel,  "  The  Lord  shall  reign  over  them 
in  Mount  Zion  from  hencelorth  even  forever."  And 
Psalm  cxlvi.  10,  "The  Lord  shall  reign  forever,  even 
thy  God,  O  Zion."  But  here  again  the  common  ex- 
planation is  given,  "  unto  all  generations."    Also  to  his 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  225 

wisdom  or  counsel.  In  Psalm  xxxiii.  11,  "The counsel 
of  the  Lord  standeth  forever."  But  it  is  said,  by  way 
of  explanation,  'Hhe  thought  of  his  heart  to  all  gene- 
rations." And  io  his  righteousness  or  salvation.  Thus 
it  is  said,  Isai,  li.  6,  "my  salvation  shall  be  forever, 
and  my  righteousness  shall  not  be  abolished."  Now 
compare  with  this,  verse  8,  "  my  righteousness  shall 
be  forever,  and  my  salvation  from  generation  to  gene- 
ration ;''  does  not  "  from  generation  to  generation" 
here  express  precisely  what  is  meant  by  "forever?" 

But  I  find  the  word  olirn  rendered  ^'  forever'^  and 
applied  io  God's  mercy.  The  expression,  for  his 
mercy  endureth  forever,  is  found  once  in  each  of  the 
following  texts :  2  Cliron.  v.  13  ;  xx,  21  ;  Ezra  iii.  11  ; 
Psalm  cvi.  1  ;  cvii.  1;  cxxxviii,  8;  Jer.  xxxiii.  11. 
In  each  of  the  following  places  it  occurs  twice.  2 
Chron.  vii.  3,  6  ;  1  Chron.  xvi.  34,  41.  In  Psalm 
cxviii.  1 — 4,  29,  it  is  found  five  times.  And  in  Psalm 
cxxxvi.  it  occurs  no  less  than  twenty-six  times.  The 
expression  "  for  his  mercy  endureth  forever,"  is  found 
then  forty-two  times  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  rea- 
son for  being  so  particular  in  thus  numbering  the  places 
will  appear  presently.  Although  the  following  texts 
do  not  contain  this  precise  expression,  yet  it  is  evident 
they  have  an  affinity  to  the  present  topic.  I  shall 
therefore  introduce  them  here,  before  I  proceed  to  make 
any  remarks  on  the  above  expression.  David  says, 
Psalm  Ixxxix.  1,  "  I  will  sing  of  the  mercies  of  the 
Lord  forever,"  and  explains  it  by  adding,  "  with  my 
mouth  will  I  make  known  thy  faithfulness  to  all  gene- 
rations." And  well  he  might,  for  he  says,  verse  2, 
"  Mercy  shall  be  built  up  forever."  And  again  ex- 
plains his  meaning  by  saying,  "  thy  faithfulness  shalt 
thou  estabhsh  in  the  very  heavens."  Observe,  that  in 
the  first  of  these  verses  forever  is  explained  in  the  mar- 


226  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

gin  "  to  generation  and  generation."  In  the  second 
by  his  faithfulness  being  established  in  the  very  heavens 
seems  to  be  meant,  that  it  should  endure  as  the  heavens 
or  throughout  all  generations.  Besides,  David  says, 
Psalm  c%  5,  ''  For  the  Lord  is  good  :  his  mercy  is  ever- 
lasting," and  adds,  by  way  of  explanation,  "and  his 
truth  endureth  to  all  generations."  He  adds,  Psalm 
ciii.  17,  "  But  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlast- 
ing to  everlasting  upon  them  that  fear  him,"  and  it  is 
again  added,  "and  his  righteousness  unto  children's 
children." 

On  all  these  texts  where  It  is  said,  "for  his  mercy 
endureth  forever,"  with  others  of  a  similar  nature,  I 
shall  now  make  a  few  observations.  1st.  It  is  very 
evident,  that  the  mercy  of  God  formed  the  burden  of 
song  to  the  Jews  in  their  worship.  The  God  of  the 
Jews  was  a  merciful  God,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great 
kindness.  2d.  Tf  it  be  true,  as  our  orthodox  friends 
assert,  that  God  is  as  much  glorified  in  the  display  of 
his  endless  wrath  against  the  wicked,  as  in  the  display 
of  his  endless  mercy  towards  the  righteous,  how  do 
they  account  for  it,  that  the  phrase  "  for  his  wrath  en- 
dureth forever"  does  not  occur  forty-two  times  as  well 
as  the  phrase  ''  for  his  mercy  endureth  forever?"  Why 
have  we  not  a  Psalm,  in  which  it  is  twenty-six  limes 
said,  "  O  give  thank«i  unto  the  Lord  for  he  is  good,  for 
his  wrath  endureth  forever."  Nor  do  we  see  what  ob- 
jection they  could  have  to  singing  it,  if  God  is  as  much 
glorified  by  the  one  as  by  the  other.  But  supposing 
such  a  Psalm  found  in  the  Bible,  and  that  they  should 
sing  both,  would  they  not  celebrate  the  endless  mercy 
and  wrath  of  the  same  God  towards  his  own  creatures  ? 
But  I  ask,  how  all  this  could  be  reconciled  with  God.s 
declarations,  that  mercy  rejoiceth  against  judgment, 
and  that  his  tender  mercies  are  over  his  other  works* 


AN    lNq,UIRY PART    II.  227 

But  3d.  we  would  candidly  ask  our  orthodox  brethren, 
how  they  account  for  the  extraordinary  fact,  that  it  is 
not  once  said  that  "  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  endureth 
forever!"  so  far  from  this  being  once  asserted,  it  is  re- 
peatedly and  expressly  denied  that  God's  v/rath  en- 
dureth lorever.  Thus  it  is  said,  Psalm  ciii.  9,  "  He 
will  not  always  chide  ;  neither  will  he  keep  his  anger 
forever."  Again,  Isai.  Ivii.  16,  "  For  I  will  not  con- 
tend forever,  neither  will  I  be  always  wroth  :  for  the 
spirit  should  fail  before  me  and  the  souls  which  I  have 
madv."  No,  say  our  orthodox  friends,  they  shall  not 
fail,  but  shall  endure  the  endless  wrath  of  God,  But 
it  is  again  said,  Jer.  iii.  5,  "  Will  he  reserve  his  anger 
forever  ?  Will  he  keep  it  to  the  end  ?  Here  it  is  sup- 
posed that  forever  is  to  end,  and  hence  it  is  said,  verse 
12,  "  for  F.  am  merciful  saith  the  Lord,  and  I  will  not 
keep  anger  forever.  And  in  Lam.  iii.  31,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  "the  Lord  will  not  cast  off  forever." — 
Further,  David  says.  Psalm  Ixxxv.  5,  "  Wilt  thou  be 
angry  with  us  forever  ?"  but  he  adds,  by  way  of  expla- 
nation, "  wilt  thou  draw  out  thine  anger  to  all  genera- 
tions ?"  And  Psalm  Ixxvii.  8,  says,  "  is  his  mercy 
clean  gone  forever  ?  Doth  his  promise  fail  for  ever- 
more ?"  Notice  here,  that  as  forever  and  for  evermore 
are  expressions  which  convey  to  an  English  reader  the 
same  idea,  so  did  the  original  word  olim  to  the  sacred 
writers.  This  appears  also  from  other  passages.  It  is 
beyond  debate,  that  it  is  never  once  said,  that  the  an- 
ger, or  wrath  of  God  endureth  forever.  We  solemnly 
call  on  any  man  to  produce  a  single  instance  where 
this  is  said.  By  what  authority  then  do  men  in  our 
day  preach  that  God's  wrath  is  to  endure  forever?  Is 
it  like  men  who  reverence  the  sacred  oracles,  to  speak 
of  the  everlasting  anger  and  eternal  wrath  of  God,  yet 
can  produce  no  example  from  them  of  such  modes  of 


228  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

speaking?  Yea,  I  ask  every  candid  man  if  it  is  pos- 
sible to  select  words,  which  could  more  clearly  and 
emphatically  deny  that  God's  wrath  endureth  forever, 
than  is  done  in  the  above  passages  ?  Granting  then, 
for  argument's  sake,  that  olim  rendered  forever,  ex- 
presses endless  duration,  and  that  God's  wrath  or  an- 
ger means  punishment,  no  language  could  more  defi- 
nitely declare,  that  punishment  is  not  of  endless  dura- 
tion. Were  I  contending  for  a  victory  over  the  be- 
lievers in  endless  punishment,  it  would  be  good  policy 
in  me  to  allow,  that  olim,  rendered  forever,  expresses 
this,  and  the  above  texts  would  be  direct  positiv^e  proof, 
that  it  is  not  of  endless  duration.  Our  orthodox  friends 
in  contending  for  this  must  perceive,  that  their  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment  is  overturned  from  its  base  by 
the  above  passages.  But  I  disclaim  any  contention 
for  victory.  My  object  is  to  examine  what  is  truth, 
and  embrace  it  whatever  it  may  be,  for  this  only  can 
stand,  or  be  of  any  real  benefit  to  the  human  race.  4th  J 
But  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  God's 
wrath  was  as  much  celebrated  in  the  Bible  as  his  mer- 
cy, and  that  the  endless  duration  of  it  was  as  often  as- 
serted, permit  me  to  ask,  what  worse  could  be  sung  of 
an  Eastern  despot,  or  of  the  devil,  allowing  such  a  fallen 
angel  to  exist  ?  We  seriously  urge  our  brethren,  who 
believe  such  a  doctrine,  to  consider  if  such  a  God  can 
appear  to  any  person  very  lovely,  or  is  likely  to  be 
loved.  None  can  love  him,  but  those  who  can  per- 
suade themselves  that  they  are  his  particular  favorites. 
Even  this  may  be  doubted,  for  a  being  of  this  charac- 
ter may  turn  their  enemy  to-morrow,  and  display  his 
endless  wrath  upon  them.  All  the  apparent  love  and 
obedience  which  they  pretend  to  pay  him,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  arises  more  from  terror  of,  than  love  to  him  ; 
and  if  a  song  of  endless  mercy  and  endless  wrath  are 


AN    INQUIRY PART   II.  229 

both  alike  orthodox,  orthodoxy  must  be  a  very  singu- 
lar kind  of  thing. 

To  get  rid  of  these  and  other  serious  difficulties 
which  mi^ht  be  urged,  it  may  be  said,  "  in  all  the  above 
texts  where  it  is  denied  that  God's  wrath  end ureth  for- 
ever, the  writers  are  not  speaking  of  God's  wrath  in  a 
future  state  of  existence,  but  only  in  the  present  life." 
Well,  how  does  this  relieve  the  difficulties,  unless  it  is 
proved  from  some  other  texts,  that  God  says  his  wrath 
shall  endure  forever  in  a  future  state  of  existence  ?  But 
can  this  be  proved  ?  No  :  this  very  attempt  to  escape 
from  the  difficulties,  only  shows  the  impossibility  of 
making  any  escape,  for  if  the  above  texts  wholly  refer 
to  the  present  life,  how  happens  it  that  they  are  the 
only  texts  wheve  forever  and  the  wrath  of  God  are  as- 
sociated, and  in  them  it  is  expressly  denied  that  his 
wrath  does  endure  forever?  If  denied  in  them,,  and 
found  in  no  other,  it  settles  the  question,  that  God's 
wrath  does  not  endure  throughout  all  generations,  far 
less  in  an  eternal  state  of  existence.  But  is  it  not 
rather  silly  to  make  the  inspired  writers  say,  that  God's 
wrath  does  not  endure  forever  in  the  present  life,  yet 
contend  for  this  in  a  future  state  without  any  Scripture 
authority?  Who  needed  to  be  told  that  God's  punish- 
ment of  men  in  this  world  was  not  of  endless  duration  ? 

5th.  We  come  now  to  those  texts  in  which  olim  is 
repeated,  and  is  rendered  "  forever  and  ever."  I  find 
then,  that /orever  and  ever  is  used  and  applied  to  the 
following  things,  in  the  following  ways.  David  says. 
Psalm  cxix.  44,  I  shall  keep  thy  law  continually,  for- 
ever and  ever.  And  in  Mic.  iv.  5,  We  will  walk  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  our  God  forever  and  ever.  And 
Dan.xii.  3,  They  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  shall 
shine  as  the  stars  forever  and  ever.  And  David  says 
of  God's  judgments,  that — "they  stand   fast  forever 


230  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

and  ever."  Psalm  cxi.  8.  What  is  meant  by  this  for- 
ever and  ever,  and  whether  it  was  intended  to  express 
endless  duration  may  be  learned  from  tlie  following 
texts.  In  Jer,  vii.  7,  if  Israel  amended  their  ways,  then 
said  God,  "  will  I  cause  you  to  dwell  in  this  place  in 
the  land  that  I  gave  to  your  fathers  forever  and  ever." 
It  is  very  evident,  that  if  forever  and  ever  expresses 
endless  duration  of  time,  on  the  above  consideration 
Israel  were  to  dwell  in  Judea  time  without  end.  But 
wdio  ever  entertained  such  an  idea  ?  Is  not  the  mean- 
ing evidently  from  generation  to  generation,  or  through- 
out all  generations,  while  they  continued  a  nation  ? — 
Again  it  is  said,  Isai.  xxx.  8,  "  Now  go  write  it  in  a 
book,  that  it  may  be  for  the  time  to  come,  forever  and 
ever."  The  forever  and  ever  here,  is  called  the  time 
to  come,  which  time  appears  to  be  not  endless  duration, 
but  simply  the  future  generations  of  Israel.  See  the 
context.  If  time  to  come  be  a  proper  explanation  of 
forever,  it  cannot  refer  to  eternity  unless  we  think 
eternity  time.  But  is  not  time  ahvays  distinguished 
from  eternity  ?  What  is  meant  by  forever  and  ever, 
seems  plainly  stated  in  Psalm  cxlviii.  5,  .6,  speaking 
of  the  host  of  heaven,  it  is  said,  "  he  commanded,  and 
they  were  created.  He  hath  also  estabhshed  them 
forever  and  ever.''  But  is  the  host  of  heaven,  or  the 
sun,  moon,  and  stars,  to  continue  to  endless  duration  ? 
This  must  be  maintained,  or  we  must  give  up  the  idea 
that  forever  and  ever  expresses  a  proper  eternity.  We 
have  seen  above,  that  forever  is  applied  to  the  host  of 
heaven,  and  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  forever 
and  ever  here  cannot  express  a  longer  period  of  time. 
Both  seem  to  be  limited  by  the  duration  of  this  world. 
Again,  God  speaking,  Isai.  xxxiv.  10.  of  his  temporal 
judgments  on  all  nations,  particularly  on  Idumea,  says, 
in  highly  figurative  language,  "  the  land  thereof  shall 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  231 

become  burning  pitch.  It  shall  not  be  quenched  night 
nor  day  ;  the  smoke  thereof  shall  go  up  forever  ;  from 
generation  to  generation  it  shall  lie  waste  ;  none  shall 
pass  through  it  forever  and  ever."  Compare  verse  17. 
Let  it  be  noticed  on  this  text,  that  forever,  and  forever 
and  ever,  mean  the  same  duration  of  time,  and  both 
these  are  explained  by  the  phrase  "from  generation  to 
generation." 

But  I  find  olim  repeated,  and  rendered  forever  and 
ever,  and  applied  to  God,  in  the  following  places  : — 
In  ascriptions  of  praise  to  him.  Thus  it  is  said, 
"  Blessed  be  thou,  Lord  God  of  Israel,  our  father,  for- 
ever and  ever."  1  Chron.  xxix.  10.  The  same  for 
substance  is  repeated  in  chap.  xvi.  36,  and  Neh.ix.  5. 
And  in  Psalm  cxlv.  1,  it  is  said,  "I  will  bless  thy 
name  forever  and  ever  ;"  and  verse  2,  "  I  will  praise 
thy  name  for  ever  and  ever ;"  and  verse  21,  "  Let  all 
flesh  bless  his  holy  name  forever  and  ever."  It  is  also 
applied  to  the  existence  of  God.  Thus  in  Dan.  xiijj 
7,  the  man  clothed  in  linen  "  sware  by  him  that  liveth 
forever  and  ever."  And  David  says.  Psalm  xlviii.  14, 
"  For  this  God  is  our  God  forever  and  ever."  Also 
to  GorTs  reign.  Accordingly  it  is  said,  Exod.xv.  18, 
"The  Lord  shall  reign  for  ever  and  ever."  And  in 
Psalm  x.  16,  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  is  king  forever  and 
ever."  And  in  Psalm  xlv.  6,  "  Thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  forever  and  ever."  Also  to  the  mercy  oj  God. — 
Thus  it  is  said.  Psalm  lii.  8,  "  I  trust  in  the  mercy  of 
God  forever  and  ever."  It  seems  also  to  be  applied 
to  the  Messiah :  "  He  asked  life  of  thee  and  thou 
gavest  it  him,  even  length  of  days  forever  and  ever," 
Psalm  xxi.  4.  And  xlv.  17,  "I  will  make  thy  name 
to  be  remembered  in  all  generations :  therefore  shall 
the  people  praise  thee  forever  and  ever."  Now  suf- 
fer me  to  ask  here — Does  not  the  phrase,  all  genera- 


^32  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

tions,  in  the  first  part  of  this  verse,  explain,  or  express 
the  very  same  thing  as  forever  and  ever,  in  the  last 
part,  and  is  it  not  in  unison  with  the  common  ex- 
planation so  often  given  above,  where  olim  is  rendered 
forever  ? 

In  looking  back  on  all  the  texts  introduced  in  these 
two  Sections,  let  the  reader  notice  the  following  things. 
All  the  texts  in  the  first  show  that  the  word  olirti  ex- 
presses limited  duration,  and  was  so  understood  by  our 
translators,  for  they  render  it  by  English  words  which 
do  not  convey  the  idea  of  endless  duration.  Again, 
the  greater  part  of  the  passages  in  both  Sections  show, 
that  the  word  olim,  in  whatever  way  rendered,  was  ap- 
plied by  the  sacred  writers  to  things  of  temporary  du- 
ration. This,  we  think,  is  indisputable.  Again,  it 
has  been  seen  that  olim,  whether  applied  to  tempora- 
ry things  or  to  God,  is  explained  by  the  inspired  wri- 
ters to  mean  throughout  all  generations,  or  by  some 
similar  expression.  Why  give  such  explanations  at 
all,  if  the  word  means  endless  duration?  And  why 
were  they  given,  when  God  is  spoken  of,  as  well  as 
when  it  expresses  the  duration  of  any  thing  else, 
if  it  expresses  his  endless  duration  ?  But  again : 
in  none  of  the  above  passages  is  the  word  olim  used 
to  express  the  duration  of  punishment  to  the  wicked. 
All  the  texts  where  it  is  supposed  to  be  used  to  ex- 
press this,  will  be  considered  in  the  next  Section. — 
The  long  detail  of  texts  in  the  two  preceding  Sections, 
perhaps,  may  appear  dry  and  uninteresting  to  some 
readers  ;  but  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  pursue  this 
course  to  come  at  a  full  and  fair  understanding  of  the 
Scriptural  meanintr  and  oeneral  usao-e  of  the  \vord 
ohm,  so  variously  rendered  in  the  common  version. 


AN    INQUIRY PART   II.  233 


SECTION  in. 

ALL  THE  TEXTS  V^HERE  OLIM  OCCURS,  AND  IS  RENDER- 
ED BY  WORDS  WHICH  CONVEY  THE  IDEA  OF  ENDLESS 
DURATION,  AND  APPLIED  TO  PUNISHMENT,  PARTICU- 
LARLY CONSIDERED. 

In  the  preceding  Section,  we  have  seen  the  term 
oUjii,  rendered  perpetual,  everlasting,  and  forever,  and 
used  to  express  the  duration  of  the  punishment  of  cer- 
tain ylaces,  Isai.  xxxiv.  9 — IT,  and  Jer.  xlix.  13. — 
We  are  new  to  bring  into  view  the  texts  where  it  is 
used  to  express  the  punishment  of  persons,  in  what- 
ever way  it  is  rendered  in  the  common  verson.  Jer. 
xxiii.  39,  40,  is  the  first  we  shall  notice.  "There- 
fore 1,  even  I,  will  utterly  forget  you,  and  I  will  for- 
sake you,  and  the  city  that  1  gave  you  and  your 
fathers,  and  cast  you  out  of  my  presence :  and  I  will 
bring  an  everlasting  reproach  upon  you,  and  a  per- 
petual shame,  which  shall  not  be  forgotten."  Comp. 
Jer.  XX.  11.  It  has  been  shown,  in  the  Inquiry  into 
the  words,  Sheol,  Hades,  &c.,  that  this  passage  re- 
fers to  the  punishment  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  de- 
serves no  further  notice  here.  See  on  2  Thess.  chap, 
i.,  below,  and  on  Matt,  chaps,  xxiv.,  xxv.  Indeed,  few 
will  question  this. 

Jer.  xvii.  4.  "  For  ye  have  kindled  a  fire  in  mine 
anger,  which  shall  burn  forever."  It  is  so  evident, 
from  verses  I — 4,  the  prophet  is  speaking  of  the  sin 
and   punishment  of  Judah,  and   this  punishment  was 


234  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II. 

of  a  temporal  nature,  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time 
to  offer  any  remarks  on  this  passage. 

Isai.  xxxiii.  14.  "The  sinners  in  Zion  are  afraid; 
fearfulness  hath  surprised  the  hypocrites  :  w  ho  among 
us  shall  dwell  with  devouring  fire?  Who  among  us 
shall  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings  ?"  Having  con- 
sidered this  passage  in  my  Inquiry  into  the  words 
Sheol,  Hades,  he,  to  it  1  refer  the  reader  for  an  illus- 
tration. 

Psalm  ix.  5.  "  Thou  hast  reT^uked  the  heathen, 
thou  hast  destroyed  the  wicked,  thou  hast  put  out 
their  name  forevei*and  ever."  It  would  be  useless  to 
spend  time  in  showing,  that  this  text  has  no  reference 
to  punishment  in  a  future  state.  No  sensible  orthodox 
man  would  urge  it,  and  no  man  who  consults  the  con- 
text, can  help  seeing  that  it  has  no  reference  to  such  a 
a  subject. 

Mai.  i.  4.  "  Whereas  Edom  saith,  we  are  impov- 
erished, but  we  will  return  and  build  the  desolate 
places ;  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  they  shall  build, 
but  I  will  throw  down  ;  and  they  shall  call  them  the 
border  of  wickedness,  and  the  people  against  whom 
the  Lord  hath  indignation  forever."  The  prophet  is 
here  speaking  of  Edom,  and  it  is  plain  from  the  con- 
text, that  the  indignation  mentioned,  is  not  in  a  future 
state,  but  God's  temporal  vengeance  on  that  people. 
The  meaning  of  the  passage  evidently  is,  '•  the  peo- 
ple against  whom  the  Lord  hath  indignation  from  gene- 
ration to  generation,"  as  explained  frequently  in  j)re^ 
ceding  Sections. 

Dan.  xii.  2.  "  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life, 
and  some  to  shame  aijd  everlasting  contempt."  The 
principal  question  to  be  considered  from  this  passage 
is— Did  Daniel  here  speak  of  the  everlasting  punish- 


AN    INQUIRY^PART    II.  235 

ment  of  ibe  wicked  ?     If  he   did,  be   delivered   it  in 

plainer  language  than   any  other  sacred  writer,  and  in 

a  book  which  contains  predictions   clothed  in   highly 

figurative  lanouao^e.     Our  orthodox  friends  do  not  de- 
cs or* 

pend  much  on  the  Old  Testament  for  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  endless  misery,  and  as  this  is  the  strongest, 
yea,  I  may  say  the  only  text  which  they  generally 
quote  from  it  in  proof,  we  shall  give  it  a  particular 
consideration. 

The  passage  then  says — "  x\nd  at  that  time."  At 
what  time  ?  The  time  evidently,  of  which  Daniel  had 
been  speaking,  chap.  xi.  This  will  not  be  disputed, 
for  it  is  plain  that  the  first  four  verses  of  chap,  xii, 
connect  with  the  matters  stated  in  the  11th  chapter. 
The  things  mentioned  are  said  to  take  place  at  the  pe- 
riod called  thai  time,  chap.  xii.  1,  wbatever  time  this 
may  be.  This  time,  is  easily  ascertained,  from  con- 
sidering of  what  people  Daniel  was  speaking.  It  is 
plain  he  referred  to  the  Jews,  for  in  verse  1,  they  are 
twice  called  "thy  people,''  or  Daniel's  people,  who 
certainly  were  Jews.  Let  us  then  see  how  the  events 
mentioned  agree  to  Daniel's  people.  It  is  said,  "  and 
at  that  time,"  which  time  is  called,  chap.  xii.  40,  "  the 
time  of  the  end."  But  this  provokes  the  question— r- 
What  end  ?  I  answer,  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  or 
dispensation.  Is  it  asked,  what  proof  have  we  of  this  ? 
I  answer,  in  chap.  xl.  verse  31,  •'  the  abomination  that 
makeih  desolate''  is  expressly  mentioned,  w^iich  passage 
our  Lord  quotes,  Matth,  xxiv.  15,  and  applies  it  to  the 
Romans,  by  whom  the  Jewish  temple  and  city  were 
destroyed  at  the  end  of  the  age.  See  the  whole  of 
chap,  xi,  for  other  circumstances  which  corroborate 
this.  It  will  be  shown  afterwards,  that  the  period 
called  '•  the  end,"  chap,  xi,  and  "  that  time,"  chap.  xii. 
I;  exactly  agree  to  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation, 


236  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

which  is  repeatedly  called  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  or 
age,  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  then  said,  at  that 
time  "  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the  great  prince  which 
standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  peopled  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  say  with  certainty,  who  w?ts  referred  to  by 
Michael,  nor  is  this  necessary  to  be  determined  in  the 
present  discussion.  The  most  probable  opinion  we  have 
seen  Is,  that  Michael,  the  great  prince,  refers  to  Mes- 
siah, called  the  prince  of  the  Jews  in  other  parts  of 
the  book  of  Daniel,  and  the  prince  of  life,  and  prince 
of  the  kings  of  the  earth,  in  other  parts  of  Scripture. 
It  is  supposed  by  Pierce  and  others,  that  certain  an- 
gels presided  over  different  parts  of  the  world  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  but  all  of  them  now  are  put  in 
subjection  to  him.  During  the  period  which  pre- 
ceded his  coming,  it  is  supposed  he  was  the  person 
who  presided  over  the  Jewish  nation.  But  it  would 
be  aside  from  ,my  present  object  to  enter  further  into 
this  question. 

The  passage  proceeds  to  say — ''  And  there  shall  be 
a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was 
a  nation  even  to  that  same  time."  Our  Lord  refers 
to  these  very  words,  Matt.  xxiv.  21,  and  applies  them 
to  the  great  tribulations  which  came  on  the  Jews  in 
the  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple  at  the  end  of 
the  age,  "  For  then  shall  be  great  tribulation,  such 
as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this 
time,  no  nor  ever  shall  be.  And  except  those  days 
should  be  shortened,  there  should  no  flesh  be  saved." 
Who  can  doubt,  after  reading  this,  that  Daniel  referred 
to  the  end  of  the  age,  and  the  tribulations  which  came 
on  the  Jewish  nation  ?  He  could  refer  to  no  other, 
unless  it  can  be  proved,  that  there  have  been  two  dif- 
ferent times  of  such  calamity,  that  the  like  had  never 
been  since  there  was  a  nation,  or  from  the  beginning 


AN    IN^Umr PART    II.  237 

of  the  world.  We  think  this  conclusively  shows  to 
what  period,  to  what  people,  and  to  what  calamities 
the  prophet  referred. 

It  is  further  said — -''And  at  that  time  thy  people 
shall  be  delivered,  every  one  that  shall  be  found  writ- 
ten in  the  book."  It  is  not  said,  all  Daniels  people 
shall  be  delivered  "  at  that  time,''  but  only  such  as 
were  found  "  ivritten  in  the  booJcJ^  What  is  meant 
by  being  blotted  out  of  a  book,  or  not  found  written 
in  it,  we  may  learn  from  Exodus,  xxxii.  32,  33,  and 
compare  Rev.  xx.  15,  On  the  contrary,  wdiat  is 
meant  by  beinoj  found  written  in  a  book,  may  be  learn- 
ed from  Phil.  iv.  3,  and  Rev.  xiii.  8.  Compare  Isai. 
iv.  3,  and  Luke  x.  20.  I  shall  only  quote  the  fol- 
lowing passages,  which  are  a  sufficient  illustration  of 
this  phraseology,  ••'  Let  them  be  blotted  out  of  the 
book  of  the  living,  and  not  be  written  with  the  righte- 
ous," Psalm  Ixix.  28.  By  consulting  this  Psalm  any 
one  mav  see  David  referred  to  the  unbelievins;  Jews, 
who  were  the  murderers  of  our  Lord,  for  it  is  quoted 
in  tlie  New  Testament  and  applied  to  them.  It  is  im- 
plied, that  the  righteous  are  written  in  a  book,  and  it 
is  evident,  also,  that  to  be  blotted  out  "  of  the  book 
of  the  living,"  or  ''not  to  be  written  with  the  righte- 
ous," are  synonymous  expressions.  Who,  then,  were 
the  righteous,  written  in  the  book,  distinguished  from 
the  unbelievino;  Jews  not  written  with  the  righteous  ? 
What  persons  could  they  be  but  our  Lord's  disciples? 
This,  in  the  first  place,  agrees  to  the  fact,  for  they 
were  all  delivered  from  the  calamities  which  came  on 
the  Jewish  nation  at  the  end  of  the  age.  They  left 
the  city  according  to  our  Lord's  directions.  Matt, 
xxiv.,  and  went  to  a  city  called  Pell  a,  as  shown  by 
Macknight  on  that  chapter.  Second,  It  is  in  agree 
ment  with  the  prediction  of  Malachi,  and  the  language 
16 


238  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

he  uses  in  reference  both  to  Christ's  disciples  and  also, 
the  unbeHeving  Jews.  Concerning  the  former.  "  a 
book  of  remembrance  was  written,"  chap.  iii.  16,  and 
they  were  spared  as  a  man  spareth  his  only  son  which 
serv^eth  him.  Concerning  the  latter,  they  were  to  be 
as  stubble.  See  the  description  given  of  them  at 
length  in  Malachi,  chaps,  iii,  iv.  The  peculiar 
phraseology  about  being  written  in  a  book,  is  in  allu- 
sion to  the  ancient  practice  of  niaking  record  at 
courts,  of  any  good  service  any  one  had  done,  as  may 
be  3een  by  consulting  Esther  vj.  1,  2,  and  ii.  23. — 
This  part  of  the  passage,  then,  perfectly  agrees  with 
Scripture,  and  with  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  verse  2.  "  And  many  of 
ihem  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  sliall  awake, 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt."  That  no  literal  resurrection  of  the 
dead  look  place  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  needs 
no  proof,  and  it  has  been  shown  that  Daniel  refers  to 
this  period.  What  then  is  the  prophet's  meaning? — 
The  phrase  "everlasting  life"  occurs  no  where  else  in 
the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a  phrase  familiar  to  the 
New  Testament  writers,  and  if  borrowed  from  the 
Old,  must  have  been  taken  from  this  place  in  Daniel. 
It  could  not  refer  to  the  liappiness  of  heaven,  as  peo- 
ple generally  suppose,  but  to  that  life  of  happiness  en- 
joyed by  the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  who  were  found 
written  in  the  book,  as  the  time  and  events  mentioned 
verse  I,  show.  Besides,  it  is  set  in  contrast  to  the 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt  suffered  by  those  not 
found  written  in  the  book,  and  which  came  on  the 
Jews  in  the  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple,  and 
which  they  are  still  as  a  nation  enduring.  It  is  obvi- 
ous, that  in  Scripture  style,  life  is  used  to  express  glo- 
X^i  honor,  and  happiness,  as  could  easily  be  shownt-'-«i 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  239 

At  the  period  referred  to,  verse  1,  many  awoke  to  the 
honor  and  happiness  of  our  Lord's  kingdom,  or  reign, 
which  consists  in  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in 
the  holy  spirit.  So  did  many  to  the  shame  and  con^ 
tempt  which  came  on  the  unbeHeving  part  of  the  Jew^ 
ish  nation.  The  term  everlasting  is  applied  to  both, 
and  can  occasion  no  difficulty  to  any  one,  who  has  at- 
tended to  the  Old  Testament  usage  of  this  word,  as 
shown  in  the  preceding  Sections.  It  is  objected, — r 
"  How  could  any  believer  enjoy  everlasting  -life,  or  any 
one  endure  shame  and  everlastino;  contempt,  if  these 
are  confined  to  this  world  ?  Must  not  both  be  carried 
into  another  world  to  be  ev^erlasiing  ?"  We  answer 
this  by  asking, — Must  not  the  children  of  Israel  and 
the  land  of  Canaan,  then,  be  carried  into  a  future 
state,  that  they  may  enjoy  this  land  for  "  an  everlast- 
ing possession  ?"  And  must  not  the  servant  whose 
ear  was  pierced,  go  into  another  world  if  he  would 
serve  his  master  forever?  And  must  not  Aaron  and 
his  sons,  with  the  whole  Levitical  service,  go  into  an^ 
other  world,  that  they  may  enjoy  the  priesthood 
forever?  In  fact,  instances  without  number  may 
be  adduced,  to  show  the  absurdity  of  such  an  objec- 
tion, and  of  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  on  the  word 
everlastintr. 

It  is  agreeable  to  fact,  that  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
three  thousand  Jews  awoke  to  the  everlasting  life  im- 
parted by  the  gospel,  by  believing  in  Jesus.  Such 
also  was  the  case  with  multitudes,  as  the  history-  of 
the  acts  of  the  Apostles  shows.  Though  the  spirit  of 
slumber  had  seized  the  Jewish  nation,  though  they  had 
eyes,  and  saw  not,  and  ears,  but  heard  not,  yet  the 
apostle  declares  that  there  was  a  remnant  according 
to  the  election  of  grace.  See  Rom.  xi.  This  part 
^WQk§  io  everlasting  life,  or  entered  into  the  eyerla,?,^^ 


240  AN    INQUIRY PART    11. 

ing  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  had  peace  and  joy  in  be- 
lieving. They  heard  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  and 
lived.  Compare  Eph.  v.  14.  The  rest  slept  on  till 
the  wrath  of  God  came  upon  them  to  the  uttermost. 
They  awoke,  but  it  was  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt, in  being  dispersed  among  all  nations,  and  have 
become  a  by-word  and  an  hissing  even  unto  this  day. 
Jeremiah,  in  chap,  xxiii.  39,  40,  predicted  this  very 
punishment,  and  calls  it  an  everlasting  reproach,  and 
a  perpetual  shame.  That  the  life  or  happiness  enjoyed 
by  believers  in  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ  is  called 
everlasting  life  m  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  after- 
wards sliow. 

After  what  has  been  said,  we  shall  only  glance  at 
verses  3,  4.  "  And  they  that  be  wise  shall  shine  as 
the  brightness  of  the  firmament,  and  they  that  turn 
many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  forever  and  ever." 
It  is  a  sufficient  illustration  of  this  verse  to  quote  our 
Lord's  words.  Matt.  xiii.  43.  "  Then  shall  the  righte- 
ous shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their 
father."  See,  on  this  whole  context.  Section  vi.,  be- 
low. Compare  Matt.  xxiv.  13,  and  Luke  xxi.  ^S. — 
And  is  not  Dan.  xi.  31 — 36,  descriptive  of  this  very 
time  and  events,  of  the  Jews  generally,  and  of  our 
Lord's  disciples  when  God's  judgments  came  on  that 
guilty  nation  ?  In  the  margin  of  the  verse  we  are  con- 
sidering, it  is  rendered,  "  and  they  that  be  teachers 
shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament."  How 
applicable  this  was  to  the  apostles  and  first  teachers  of 
Christianity,  needs  no  comment,  for  the  teachers  of 
the  seven  churches  of  Asia  are  called  stars,  Rev.  i. 
20.  And  who  doubts  that  the  apostles  and  first  teach- 
ers, shall  shine  in  giving  light  forever  and  ever,  or  as 
we  have  seen  this  phrase  explained,  "  throughout  all 
generations  ?" 


1 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    11.  ^41 

Let  us  now  glance  at  verse  4,  and  dismiss  this  pas- 
sage. "  But  thou,  O  Daniel,  shut  up  the  words  and 
seal  the  book  even  to  the  time  of  the  end  :  many  shall 
run  to  and  fro  and  knowledge  shall  be  increased." — 
No  man,  we  think,  can  doubt,  that  the  time  of  the 
end,  to  which  Daniel  was  to  shut  up  the  words  and 
seal  the  book,  was  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  or  dis- 
pensation. The  preceding  verses  show  that  to  this 
time  he  did  refer,  and  it  is  frequently  called  the  end, 
in  the  New  Testament.  See  1  Cor.  x.  11  ;  Heb.  ix. 
26,  and  other  passages.  See  particularly  Matt.  xxiv. 
3,  where  the  disciples  ask  our  Lord — "  What  shall  be 
the  sign  of  thy  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  world  or 
age."  But  notice  what  is  said  verse  14,  to  show  that 
many  should  run  to  and  fro  and  knowledge  should  be 
increased  before  this  end  came.  '•  And  this  gospel  of 
the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  a 
witness  unto  all  nations  ;  and  then  shall  the  end  come." 
Before  the  end  came,  or  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
the  sound  of  the  apostles'  doctrine  had  gone  out  into 
all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
These  things,  and  many  others  which  1  must  omit, 
show,  that  Daniel  here,  and  our  Lord,  Matth.  xxiv., 
speak  of  the  same  people,  the  same  time,  and  the  same 
events.  The  whole  of  this  passage  is  illustrated  by 
our  Lord's  words,  John  v.  28,  29,  an  explanation  of 
which  we  have  given  in  the  Unlversalist  Magazine, 
vol.  vii.  pp.  103 — 7.  To  it  we  refer  our  readers,  as 
our  limits  forbid  its  insertion. 

Such  are  all  the  places  in  the  Old  Testament  where 
olim  is  used,  in  whatever  way  rendered  in  the  common 
version,  and  applied  by  the  sacred  writers.  Reserving 
my  principal  remarks  on  the  use  of  this  word  to  the 
last  Section,  I  would  only  observe  here. 

1st.  That  thoudi  this  word  is  often  used  in  the  Old 


242  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

Testament,  as  my  readers  have  seen,  and  expresses 
duration  in  a  variety  of  ways,  yea,  is  used  to  express 
the  duration  of  punishment  in  a  k\v  instances,  yet  it  is 
not  once  used  to  designate  any  punishment  beyond 
this  mortal  existence,  AH  the  passages  where  it  is 
applied  to  punishment  have  been  distinctly  noticed, 
and  Dan.  xii.  1 — 4,  has  been  particularly  considered, 
which  is  the  only  text  in  the  Old  Testament  on  which 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  could  possibly  be 
built.  Our  orthodox  friends  maybe  ashamed  for  hav- 
ing made  such  a  mighty  noise  about  their  doctrine  of 
eternal  misery,  and  ought  to  make  a  public  apology  to 
the  world  for  their  conduct.  The  better  informed 
among  them  have  conceded  that  this  doctrine  is  not 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  could  any  of  them 
continue  to  believe  it,  if  they  could  only  be  induced 
to  examine  the  subject. 

2d.  If  olim  is  so  often  used  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  is  sometimes  used  to  express  the  duration  of  pun- 
ishment, yet  is  never  used  to  express  the  duration  of 
punishment  beyond  this  state  of  existence,  when  and 
how  came  the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment  after 
death  to  be  known  among  men  ?  In  the  First  Part, 
we  have  shown  its  origin  to  be  human.  If  our  ortho- 
dox brethren  still  venture  to  assert  that  its  origin  is 
divine,  it  is  their  work  to  show  this.  Its  claims  for 
our  belief  from  the  New  Testament,  I  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  examine. 


AN    INQ.UIRY PART    II.  243 


SECTION  IV. 

GENERAL    REMARKS    ON    AION,    AND    AIONIOS,    AS    USED 
IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Most  Lexicon  writers  assert,  that  aion,  and  the  ad- 
jective aionios,  are  used  to  express  an  endless  dura- 
tion of  time,  though  all  of  them  admit,  that  they  are 
also  used  to  express  a  limited  period.  From  this  very 
fact  has  arisen  long  and  violent  contentions,  whether 
these  words,  when  used  to  express  the  duration  of  pun- 
ishment, are  to  be  understood  in  a  limited  or  unlimited 
sense.  Lexicons  are  not  infallible,  nor  were  they  in- 
tended to  determine,  but  only  to  assist  us  in  ascertain- 
ing the  true  meaning  of  Scripture  words.  The  words 
were  used  and  understood  long  before  Lexicons  had 
any  existence.  Whilst  we  ought  to  avail  ourselves  of 
their  assistance,  yet  every  man  ought  to  examine  for 
himself,  from  their  general  usage,  the  context  of  the 
places,  and  other  circumstances,  if  the  senses  of  words 
given  by  them  be  correct.  To  receive  implicitly 
what  they  say,  is  only  to  perpetuate  their  errors,  if  the 
writers  have  inadvertently  or  intentionally  committed 
any. 

It  is  universally  allowed,  by  all  competent  judges, 
of  whatever  sect,  that  aion  and  aionios  are  frequently 
used  to  express  a  limited  duration  of  time.  Parkhurst 
says,  aion  "  denotes  duration  or  continuance  of  time, 
but  with  great  variety."  Ewing  says  it  signifies  "  du- 
ration, finite,  or  infinite  ;  a  period  of  duration,  past, 
or  future ;  an  age,  duration  of  the  world,  Deut.  xxxii. 


244  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

7 ;  Luke  i.  70  ;  plural,  ages  of  the  ivorld,  1  Cor.  ii.  1, 
hence  human  life  in  this  ivorld,  Luke  xvi.  8,  or  the 
next,  Mark  x.  30,  our  manner  of  life  in  the  world. 
Psalm  xc.  8  ;  Eph.  ii.  2,  an  age  oj  divine  dispensa- 
tion, the  ages,  generally  reckoned  three ;  that  before 
the  law,  that  under  the  law,  and  that  under  the  Mes- 
siah, Matt,  xxiv,  3;  and  xxviii.  20;  1  Cor.  x.  11; 
Heb.  xi.  3,  by  faith,  we  understand  that  the  ages  were 
framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  the  things  which 
are  (now)  seen,  did  not  arise  out  of  things  which  did 
(previously)  appear;  compare  verses  1,  7,  26,  27,  an 
indefinitely  long  period  of  time ;  hence  eternity ; 
Exod.  xiv.  13  ;  Luke  i.  55  ;  John  iv.  14  ;  Psalm  xix. 
9;  Gal.  i.  5  ;  Rev.  xx.  10,  from  eternity  to  eternity  ; 
1  Chron.  xxix.  10  ;  Ps.  xc.  2."  On  the  word  aionios, 
Ewing  says,  it  signifies  ^^  eternal,  Exod.  iii.  14,  15; 
Matt.  XXV.  46 ;  Rom.  xvi.  26,  chronoi  aionoi,  ages 
of  the  world,  periods  of  the  dispensations  since  the 
world  began,  Rom.  xvi.  25."  See  Parkhurst  for  a 
similar  explanation,  but  let  the  reader  examine  their 
proofs. 

The  word  aion  is  compounded  of  aei,  always  ;  and 
on,  being  ;  which  is  interpreted  by  Parkhurst  and 
others,  "  always  being."  Yet  he  says,  "  it  denotes 
duration,  or  continuance  of  time,  hut  with  great  vai^i- 
ety  /"  He  allows  that  aei,  always,  signifies  "  ever,  in 
a  restrained  sense,  that  is,  at  some  stated  times,  very 
frequently,  continually."  Acts  vii.  51,  and  2  Cor.  vi. 
10,  to  which  he  refers  as  proof  of  its  meaning  ever,  in 
an  unrestrained  sense,  do  not  prove  his  point,  for  sure- 
ly tlie  Jews  did  not  eternally  resist  the  Spirit  of  God, 
nor  did  the  apostle  mean  that  he  rejoiced  eternally. — 
Its  sense  seems  evidently  to  be  perseveriugly,  but 
not  endless  in  duration.  Had  Parkhurst  found  any 
texts   more,  to  his  purpose,   no   doubt  but  he  would 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  245 

have  quoted  thein.  All  the  texts  where  he  thinks 
aion  means  a  proper  eternity,  will  be  considered  in 
their  place. 

It  is  a  remark,  which  has  often  been  made,  that  the 
abjectiv'e  aionios  cannot  signify  more  than   the   noun 
from  whence  it  is  derived,  for,  if  the   latter  only  ex- 
presses  limited   duration,   the  former  cannot   express 
endless,     A  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  its  foun- 
tain without  mechanical  force,  nor  can  aionios  express 
a  longer  duration  i\mir  aion,  without  a  forced  construc- 
tion of  meaning.      Though  Parkhurst  asserts,  that  it 
means  "  eternal,  having   neither  beginning  nor  end.'' 
yet  he  allows  that  it  signifies  "  the  ages  of  the  world, 
the  times  since  the  beginning  of  its  existence^     And 
adds — "•  the  Seventy  frequently  use  this  adjective  for 
the  Hebrew  oulem,^^     But  from  an  examination  of  the 
texts  in  the  Old   Testament,  where  this  word  occurs, 
the'  reader  can  judge,  if  any  thing  conclusive  can  be 
drawn  from  it  as  expressing  endless  duration.       From 
an  examination  of  all  the  texts  where  it  is  used  to  ex- 
press the  duration  of  punishment,  we  think  it  proved, 
that  it  does  not  express  endless  duration,  nor  does  it 
even  refer  to  punishment  in  a  future  state  of  existence. 
Whether  aionios,  its  corresponding  word  in  the  New, 
does  this,  we  shall  see  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
passages  in  which  it  occurs.     If  it   did,  the  one  word 
certainly  does  not  correspond  to  the  other,  for  there  is 
an  inconceivable  difference  between  limited  and   end- 
less duration.     All  this  difference  is  added  by  the  New 
Testament  writers  to  the  word  aionios,  if  it  expresses 
the   eternity   of  punishment.     It  has   been   said,   that 
aionios  when  it  stands  alone,  signifies  duration  with- 
out  end.     But  how  can  it  stand  alone?     For  if  an  ad 
jective,  it  must  have  some  noun,  either  expressed  or 
understood,  wnth  which  it  is  connected,  and  which  it 


246  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

qualifies.  If  a  man  should  say — "  eternal,"  the  ques- 
tion would  immediately  be  asked  him,  eternal  what  ? 
If  he  meant  to  be  understood,  he  would  inform  us 
what  thing  he  considered  to  be  eternal ;  such  as — eter- 
nal God,  eternal  life,  eternal  punishment.  It  is  the 
noun,  then,  or  the  thing  to  which  this  word  is  applied, 
which  must  determine  the  extent  of  duration  expressed 
by  it ;  and  if  aion,  from  which  it  is  deriv^ed,  does  not 
express  endless  duration,  but  an  age,  how  can  the  ad- 
jective express  a  longer  duration,  unless  we  say  the 
word  derived  contains  more  than  that  from  which  it  is 
derived,  or  the  stream  contains  more,  or  rises  higher 
than  the  fountain?  Allowing  it  to  be  applied  to  God, 
who  is  without  beginning  or  end,  w^iat  does  this 
prove  ?  Can  this  make  God  so,  or  does  it  fix  the 
meaning  of  this  word  as  expressing  endless  duration  ? 
Not  unless  we  say,  words  expressing  a  limited  time 
cannot  possibly  be  applied  to  him  :  or  if  applied,  must 
derive  an  unHmited,  yea,  infinite  sense  frotn  such  an 
application.  Our  orthodox  friends  would  not  reason 
so  in  other  cases.  The  terms  good  and  great  are  ad- 
jectives, and  are  applied  to  God.  But  do  they  con- 
tend that  the}^  are  to  be  always  understood  in  an  infi- 
nite sense,  or  expressing  an  infinite  degree  when  so  ap- 
plied ?  Surely  not,  for  how  could  they  in  this  case 
maintain  their  doctrine  of  infinite,  endless  misery  ? — 
Seeing  it  is  said,  "  the  hoi'd\s good  unto  all,"  and  that 
''great  is  his  mercy," 

But  again,  the  words  are  used  in  the  plural  number. 
But  how  can  words  capable  of  being  used  plurally 
signify  a  proper  eternity  ?  For  eternity  is  one,  Eter- 
nities are  never  spoken  of.  People  speak  of  eternity 
to  come,  and  eternity  past,  but  still  it  is  only  one  un- 
interrupted, endless  continuance.  The  past  eternity 
had  no  beginning,  nor  had  it  an  end  when  the  future 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  247 

eternity  began,  for  in  this  view  it  could  not  be  a  pro- 
per eternity,  as  it  had  an  end.  In  fact  we  cannot 
form  a  distinct,  definite  idea  of  eternity,  for  if  this 
could  be  done,  we  must  either  be  finite  ourselves  or 
necessarily  limit  it. 

In  our  English  version  I  find  aion  rendered  seven 
times  never,  once  course,  twice  ages,  thirty-seven  times 
world,  once  without  end,  once  eternal,  twice  ever,  six- 
ty-six times  forever,  and  four  times  for  evermore.  In 
several  places  it  occurs  twice  in  the  same  text.  The 
adjective  aionios  I  find  is  rendered  three  times  world, 
once  forever,  forty-one  times  eternal,  and  twenty-four 
Umes  everlasting.  As  forever,  eternal  and  everlasting, 
are  English  words  which  convey  the  same  idea  it  is 
unnecessary  to  make  any  distinction  in  introducing  the 
passages  where  they  occur,  whether  the  translation  of 
aion  or  aionios.  In  rendering  aion  and  aionios  in  the 
New  Testament,  our  translators  have  given  us  con- 
siderable variety  as  ihey  did  in  rendering  olim  in  the 
Old  Testament.  In  only  two  instances,  however,  have 
they  rendered  them  by  the  word  age  or  a^es.  But 
many  translations  of  the  New  Testament  have  been 
made  since,  where  age  is  given  as  a  better  rendering 
of  these  words.  It  is,  I  believe,  now  generally  agreed 
by  critics  and  commentators,  both  orthodox  and  other- 
wise, that  age  ought  to  be  the  rendering  of  this  word 
in  a  variety  of  places,  some  of  which  shall  be  noticed 
in  their  place. 

It  is  universally  allowed,  that  aion  and  aionios  are 
the  words  used  in  the  Seventy's  version  in  rendering 
the  Hebrew  word  olim.  A  very  slight  inspection  of 
this  version  will  satisfy  any  one  of  its  truth.  It  is  well 
known  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  quoted  the 
Seventy's  version.  And  Mr.  Stuart  observes,  that 
although  '^  the  New  Testament  was  writen  in  Greek, 


^48  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II. 

yet  its  idiom  is  Hebrew."  He  calls  it  "the  Hebrew- 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament."  Indeed  the  longer  I 
study  the  two  Testaments  I.  am  the  more  convinced, 
that  in  understandinij  the  phraseology  of  the  New,  we 
must  recur  to  the  Old  Testament  for  our  explanations. 
The  translators  of  our  common  version,  have  rendered 
these  Hebrew  and  Greek  words,  generally,  by  the  same 
English  words,  such  as,  world,  everlasting,  eternal,  for- 
ever, and  forever  and  ever.  This  is  the  case,  whether 
the  words  are  applied  to  God,  or  to  punishment,  in  the 
Old  or  New  Testaments,  nor  is  it  intimated  that  the  ori- 
ginal words,  or  the  vv'ords  by  which  they  are  rendered, 
have  a  more  vague  and  indefinite  meaning  in  the  form- 
er than  they  have  in  the  latter.  To  an  English  reader, 
everlasting  and  forever  are  the  same  in  both  Testa- 
ments. If  everlasting  punishment  is  not  taught  in  the 
Old  Testament,  it  is  not  for  want  of  as  definite  a 
word  to  express  it,  as  is  found  in  the  New. 

It  is  admitted  by  some,  that  the  Old  Testament  is 
silent  on  the  subject  of  everlasting  puishment,yet  they 
contend  that  it  is  taught  in  the  New,  and  that  aion 
and  aionios  are  the  words  used  to  express  its  duration. 
But  why  admit  the  former  and  contend  for  the  latter? 
In  both  Testaments  punishment  is  mentioned,  and  in 
both  everlasting  and  forever  are  apj)lied  to  it.  If  it  is 
found  in  one  it  ought  to  be  found  in  both.  Is  it  ration- 
al to  suppose,  that  a  doctrine  of  so  much  importance 
should  be  concealed  for  so  many  ages  ?  How  can  this 
be  reconciled  with  tlie  divine  character?  Was  this  the 
mystery  which  was  kept  hid  from  ages,  and  from  gene- 
rations, but  is  now  revealed  to  us  by  the  apostles? 
No  New  Testament  writer  intimates,  that  punishment 
under  the  old  dispensation  was  only  tempory  in  its  du- 
ration, but  under  the  new  was  endless.  All  the  Scrip- 
ture writers  speak  of  punishment  in  the  same  way,  ex^ 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  249 

press  its  duration  in  similar  lan^ruage,  nor  would  their 
readers  suppose  that  the  New  Testament  writers  were 
behevers  in  endless  misery,  and  those  of  the  Old  not.* 
It  is  generally  allowed  that  the  punishments  threaten- 
ed under  the  Old  Testament  were  all  of  a  temporal  na- 
ture. The  question  may  then  be  asked,  whether  this 
is  not  a  mistaken  view  of  the  Old  Testament  punish- 
ments? That  it  is  not,  seems  obvious  from  all  the  in- 
stances mentioned,  and  also  from  no  other  kind  of  pun- 
ishment being  recognized  in  the  New,  when  the  pun- 
ishments under  that  dispensation  are  referred  to.  The 
New  Testament,  like  the  Old,  speaks  frequently  of 
punishment.  It  will  then  be  necessary  to  examine 
with  care,  all  the  texts  in  the  New,  where  aion  and 
aionios  are  rendered  eternal,  everlasting,  or  forever, 
and  applied  to  punishment.  Is  it  not  possible  that  men 
may  have  been  mistaken  in  affirming,  that  the  punish- 
ments under  the  Christian  dispensation  are  carried  be- 
yond death,  and  are  of  endless  duration?  May  they 
not  be  temporal,  as  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and 
why  cannot  the  words  eternal,  everlasting,  or  forever, 
be  applied  to  them,  yet  not  endless  in  duration,  just  as 
well  as  to  those  under  that  dispensation  ?  Christians 
do  not  seem  to  think  of  any  punishment  in  this  life  for 
disobedience  to  God.  No  ;  it  is  all  carried  into  a  future 
state  of  existence,  and  considered  to  be  endless.  But 
surely  the  New  Testament  writers  speak  of  punish* 
mentS;  and  very  awful  punishments,  in  this  life.  Nor 
do  they  say,  that  under  the  new  dispensation  an  eternal 
punishment  awaited  any  in  a  future  state  of  existence, 
but  did  not  under  the  old  dispensation.  The  places 
in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  words  eternal,  ever- 
lasting, or  forever,  are  applied  to  punishment,  are  ^ew 
in  number.  If  they  were  even  many,  what  could  this 
certainly  prove,  for  we  have  seen  such  words  applied 


250  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

to  things,  and  even  to  punish?ne?it  of  persons,  under 
the  former  dispensation,  where  all  allow  endless  dura- 
tion was  not  expressed  by  them  ? 

It  has  been  asserted,  that  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  depends  on  the  mean- 
ing of  aion  and  aionios  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
that  this  subject  was  reduced  to  a  matter  of  verbal  criti- 
cism. But  why  ought  not  its  truth  to  depend  as  much 
on  the  meaning  of  olim  in  the  Old  Testament,  which 
is  rendered  everlasting  and  forever,  as  those  words  are 
in  the  New  ?  It  is  a  capricious  mode  of  interpretation. 
to  give  tliis  language  a  limited  signification  in  the  one 
case  and  not  in  the  other  also.  The  truth  is,  some- 
thing besides  the  mere  application  of  the  word  ever- 
lasting to  punishment,  must  appear,  to  prove  it  of  end- 
less duration,  for  no  man  can  deny,  that  it  is  applied 
to  punishment  when  no  one  thinks  endless  duration  was 
meant.  Besides,  the  word  everlasting  being  so  fre- 
quently applied  to  temporainj  things,  shows,  that  no 
great  dependence  is  to  be  placed  on  such  an  argu- 
ment. 

Oneoftlie  most  plausible  arguments  arising  from 
everlasting  being  applied  to  punishment  in  the  New 
Testament  is,  that  in  Matth.  xxv.  46,  the  same  origi- 
nal word  is  applied  both  to  life  and  punishment,  and 
that  if  the  one  is  not  endless  neither  is  the  other.  But 
jtermit  me  here  only  to  remark — Why  does  not  this 
equally  apply  to  Dan.  xli.  2,  where  a  case  of  the  same 
kind  is  found  ?  We  have  there  shown  that  everlasting 
does  not  refer  to  endless  duration  of  either  happiness 
or  punishment,  or  to  any  thing  beyond  this  state  of 
existence.  When  we  come  to  consider  Matth.  xxv. 
46,  we  shall  see  that  this  is  a  comment  on  Dan.  xii. 
2,  and  that  both  refer  to  the  same  everlasting  punish-* 
ment  and  happiness. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    11.  251 

When  people  end  the  Old  Testament,  they  seem  to 
forget,  that  the  New  is  the  revelation  of  the  same  God 
addressed  originally  to  the  Jews  ;  that  it  was  written 
by  Jews,  and  that  its  ideas  and  language  are  borrowed 
from  Moses  and  the  prophets.  The  writers  adopt  the 
words,  phrases,  and  idioms  used  in  the  Old  Testament, 
as  well  as  quote  formally  from  it.  Dr.  Campbell  as- 
sures us  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  spoke  to  the 
Jews  in  the  dialect  of  their  own  Scriptures,  and  used 
words  and  phrases  with  which  they  were  familiar.  And 
Mr.  Stuart  calls  their  writings  the  Hebrew  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament.  If  we  would  understand  this 
book,  we  must  not  sit  down  to  it  as  the  Presbyterians, 
Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Methodists  or  Universal- 
ists,  but  as  Jews.  The  question  is  not,  what  sense  do 
any  of  these  sects  put  on  the  words,  phrases,  and  idioms 
which  are  found  in  it,  but  in  what  sense  were  they  un- 
derstood among  Jews  from  their  own  Scriptures,  Is  it 
asked — How  are  we  to  know  this?  I  answer,  from 
the  Old  Testament,  from  whence  the  New  Testament 
writers  borrowed  them.  The  Old  Testament  is  our 
dictionary  of  the  language  of  the  New,  for  the  writers 
spake,  not  in  the  words  which  man  teacheth,  but  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth.  While  the  New  Testament 
is  interpreted  by  sectarian  dictionaries,  how  can  Chris-^ 
tians  ever  come  to  be  agreed  ?  Can  any  thing  else  be 
expected  but  bitter  contentions  among  them  ?  The 
meaning  and  extent  of  the  words  and  phrases  to  come 
before  us  were  well  understood  among  the  Jevvs,  It 
is  to  be  no  concern  of  mine,  how  any  sect  now  un^ 
derstands  them,  nor  how  I  have  formerly  understood 
them  myself,  but  how  were  they  understood  by  the 
Jews,  or  what  is  their  current  sense  in  their  sacred 
books.  I  am  to  consider  myself,  and  the  reader  ought 
lo  consider  himself;,  as  living  eighteen  hundred  yeam 


252  AN    INQUIRE PART    II. 

ago,  as  being  born  and  brought  up  a  Jew ;  as  familiar 
with  the  Old  Testament ;  habituated  to  words,  phrases, 
and  idioms  of  language  common  among  the  Jews  ;  and 
in  fact,  as  far  as  possible  to  enter  into  the  feelings, 
habits  of  thinking,  and  even  the  prejudices  of  that  won- 
derful people. 

New  Testament  usage  of  a  word  or  phrase,  is  ano- 
ther very  important  rule  of  which  we  shall  avail  our- 
selves in  interpreting  the  passages  which  shall  be 
brought  before  us.  For  example,  in  ^fatth.  xxiv.  3, 
we  have  the  phrase  the  end  of  the  world.  Now,  if 
this  phrase  does  not  mean  here  the  end  of  this  natural 
world,  but  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  we  think  it  ought 
to  have  the  same  meaning  in  other  places,  unless  the 
subject  and  scope  of  the  writer  entirely  forbids  it. — 
When  I  therefore  come  to  this  phrase,  or  others  in  the 
course  of  this  investigation,  all  the  places  in  which  such 
phrases  are  found,  will  be  brought  forward  at  once  and 
considered.  This  will  save  the  repetition  of  remark, 
and  will  enable  the  reader  to  form  a  more  correct  judg- 
ment of  the  true  Scripture  meaning  of  such  phrases. — 
Besides,  if  any  inspired  writer  uses  a  word  or  phrase, 
and  its  sense  is  ascertained,  if  he  uses  it  again,  or  re- 
peatedly, it  ought  to  be  understood  in  the  same  sense, 
unless  he  by  some  way  shows  us  he  is  to  be  differently 
understood.  This  is  nothing  more  than  every  writer 
or  speaker  is  entitled  to,  whom  we  wish  to  treat  with 
common  civility.  If  he  uses  it  in  another  book,  or  if 
it  is  used  by  other  sacred  writers,  our  means  of  ascer- 
taining its  true  sense  are  increased. 

Much  misunderstanding  of  the  Scriptures  has  arisen 
from  our  overlooking  what  some  may  think  but  trifling 
circumstances.  For  example,  some  seldom  take  into 
view  the  writer,  the  time  when  he  wrote,  or  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  he  was  placed.    They  also  over- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  25^ 

look  the  persons  to  whom  he  addressed  himself,  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  and  the  sub- 
ject on  which  he  discourses  to  them.  The  scope  and 
drift  of  his  discourse  from  the  context,  is  seldom  con- 
sidered. Hence  words,  phrases,  and  verses  are  quoted, 
to  prove  what  was  never  thought  of  by  him.  His 
words  are  quoted,  and  a  sense  affixed  to  them  agreeable 
to  the  religious  creeds  of  the  persons,  which,  if  the 
context  was  but  consulted,  would  show  them  their  mis- 
take, and  that,  though  unintentionally,  they  were  per- 
verting the  Scriptures.  We  also  may  err,  and  fail  in 
w^hat  we  propose,  but  we  shall  at  least  make  the  at- 
tempt. Infallibility  is  no  article  of  our  creed  ;  we 
would  only  do  all  in  our  power  to  produce  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  wnthout  which,  endless 
division  and  debate  must  exist  amono-  Christians. 


SECTION  V. 

ALL  THE  PLACES  NOTICED,  W^HERE  AION  AND  AIONIOS 
ARE  RENDERED  AGES,  COURSE,  NEVER,  FOREVER, 
EVERMORE,  ETERNAL,  EVERLASTING  ;  BUT  WHICH 
HAVE   NO  RELATION  TO  PUNISHMENT. 

The  word  aion  is  rendered  ages,  in  the  common 
version,  in  the  following  places.  Eph.  ii.  7,  "  That 
in  the  ages  to  come  he  might  show  the  exceeding 
riches  of  his  grace."  It  \f  ould  have  been  absurd  to 
have  rendered  it  here,  "  that  in  the  eternities  to  come." 
Nor  would  it  have  sounded  well  to  have  said,  ''  that 
in  the  worlds  to  come,''  for  the  question  might  have 
17 


S54  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

been  asked,  Pray  how  many  eternities  or  worlds  are 
to  come  ?  Our  translators,  then,  not  only  own  that 
this  word  signifies  age,  but  were  compelled  to  render  it 
so  in  this  passage.  Again,  Col.  i.  26,"  Even  the  mys- 
tery which  Iiath  been  hid  from  ages  and  from  genera- 
tions." The  remarks  on  the  last  text  equally  apply 
here.  It  would  not  have  done  to  have  said,  "  even 
the  mystery  which  halh  been  hid  from  generations," 
for  the  term  generations  is  used  immediately  after  in 
the  passage.  Macknight  on  this  text,  says,  "  '  The 
mystery  which  was  kept  hid  from  the  ages  and  from 
the  generations.'  In  the  parallel  passage,  Eph.  iii.  5, 
it  is,  '  which  in  other  generations  was  not  made  known 
to  the  sons  of  men,  as  it  is  now  revealed  to  his  holy 
apostles.'  So  likewise  Romans  xvi.  25,  '  the  mystery 
which  hath  been  kept  secret,'  chronois  aioniois,  in  the 
times  of  the  ages,  or  during  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
For  the  meaning  of  the  words  mystery,  and  ages,  see 
Eph.  i.  9  ;  Tit.  i.  2,  notes.  Though  the  salvation  of 
mankind  by  faith,  was  promised  in  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  and  spoken  of  by  the  prophets,  it  was  not 
understood  by  the  Jews,  see  Eph.  iii.  5,  note,  and 
therefore  it  is  here  called  a  mystery,  or  thing  kept  se- 
cret, in  allusion  to  the  heathen  mysteries." 

I  shall  also  quote  the  following  from  Pierce,  on  this 
passage,  as  it  sheds  general  light  on  this  whole  sub- 
ject. '-'The  mystery  which  hath  been  hid  from  ages 
and  generations.'  The  expression  of  to  mysierion 
to  apokelcrymmenon  apo  ton  aionon,  is  rendered  hy 
our  translators,  Eph.  iii.  9,  the  mystery  hid  from  the 
beginning  of  the  ivorld ;  but  it  is  manifest  from  this 
place,  where  it  is  joined  with  apo  ton geneon,  that  it  is 
rightly  translated  here  hid  from  ages,  and  that  it  ought 
to  have  been  so  translated  in  that  place  also.  The 
same  thing  is  meant  when  he  speaks  of  the  revelation 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  255 

of  the  mystery,  which  we  translate,  kept  secret  since 
ike  loorld  bes^an  :  but  Mr.  Locke  better  renders  it  in 
the  secular  times,  that  is,   the  times  under  the  law.     I 
shall  here  transcribe  his  remark  upon  the  words,  Rom. 
xvi.  25,  because  it  gives  much  light  to  this  matter.— r- 
^  Why  the  times  under  the  law  were  called   chronoi 
monioi,  we  may  find  a  reason  in  their  jubilees,  which 
were  aioncs,  scccula,  or  ages,  by  which  all  the  time 
under  the  law  was  measured:  and  so  chrononaionion 
is  used,  2  Tim.  i.  9, Tit.  i.  2.     And  so  aiones  are  put 
for  the  times  of  the  law,  or  the  jubilees,  Luke  i.  70  ; 
Acts  iii.  21  ;   1  Cor.  ii.  T  ;  x.  11  ;   Eph.  iii.  9;  Col.  i. 
26  ;  Heb.  ix.  26.     x\nd  so  God  is  called   the  rock, 
aionon,  oj  a^es,    Isai.    xxvi.  4,   in  the  same   sense 
that  he  is  called  the  rock  of  Israel,  Isai.  xxx.  29,  i.  e. 
the  strength  and  support  of  the  Jewish  state  ;  for  it  is 
of  the  Jews  the  prophet  here  speaks.     So  Exod.  xxi. 
6,  eiston  aiona,  signifies  not  as  we  translate  h,  forever, 
but  to  the  jubilee;  which  will  appear  if  we  compare 
Lev.  xxv\  39 — 4i,  and  Exod.  xxi.  2.     Now  that  the 
times  of  the  law  were  the  times  spoken  of  here  by  St. 
Paul,  seems  plain  from  that  which  he  declares  to  have 
continued  a  mystery  during  all  those  times,  viz.  God's 
purpose  o(  taking  in  tb,e  Gentiles  to  be  his  people  un- 
der the  Messiah  ;  for  this  could   not  be  said  to  be  a 
mystery  at  any  other  time,  but  during  the  time  that  the 
Jews  were  the  -peculiar  people  of  God,  separated  to 
him  from  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.     Before  that 
time  there  was  no  such  name  or  notion  q^  distinction, 
as  Gentiles.     Before  the  days  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  the  calUng  of  the  Israelites  to  be  God's  pecu^ 
liar  people,  was  as  much  a  mystery,  as  the  calling  of 
others  out  of  other  nations  was  a  mystery  afterwards. 
All  that  St.  Paul  insists  on  here,  and  in  all  the  places 
wlier<^  he  meijtions  this  m^^ster^-  is  tg  show,  that  though 


256  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

God  had  declared  this  his  purpose  to  the  Jews,  by  the 
predictions  of  his  prophets  among  them,  yet  it  lay  con- 
cealed from  their  knowledge,  it  was  a  mystery  to  them, 
they  understood  no  such  thing  ;  there  was  not  any 
where  the  least  suspicion  or  thought  of  it,  till  the  Mes- 
siah being  come,  it  was  declared  by  St.  Paul  to  the 
Jews,  and  Gentiles,  and  made  out  by  the  writings  of 
the  pro{)hets  which  were  now  understood.'  " 

Aion  is  rendered  course,  Eph.  ii.  2,  '•  Wherein  in 
time  past,  ye  walked  according  to  the  course  of  this 
world."  Macknight  says,  "  Chandler  observes  that 
the  Greek  word  aion,  and  the  Latin  avu7n,  which  cor- 
responds to  it,  signify  the  life  of  man  ;  and  by  an  easy 
figure,  the  manner  of  a  man's  living."  That  olim,  in 
the  Old  Testament,  often  signifies  a  man's  lifetime,  has 
been  seen  above.  And  aionion  signifies  the  lifetime 
of  Onesimus,  Phile.  15.     See  Macknight  on  this  verse. 

The  Greek  phrase  eis  ton  aiona,  occurs  in  the  fol- 
lowing texts,  and  is  rendered  in  our  version  never. — 
John  iv.  14,  "  Whosoever  drinketh  of  the  water  that  I 
shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst."  And  viii.  51,  "If 
a  man  keep  my  saying  he  shall  never  see  death."  See 
also  verse  52.  In  chap.  x.  28,  it  is  said,  "they  shall 
never  perish,"  referring  to  Christ's  sheep.  And  xi. 
26,  "whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never 
die."  And  xiii.  8,  Peter  said  to  Jesus — "  thou  shall 
never  wash  my  feet."  Dr.  Campbell  in  his  note  on 
John  ix.  32,  says,  concerning  the  phrases  ek  touaionos 
and  eis  ton  aiona,  "  but  in  popular  language,  the  for- 
mer often  denotes  no  more  than  from  the  beijinnin'r  of 
the  world,  or  even  from  very  early  times  ;  and  eis  ton 
aiona  does  not  always  means  to  eternity,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word.  That  the  use  is  nearly  the  same 
in  the  Pagan  writers,  has  been  very  well  shown  by 
Wetstein." 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  257 

The  same  Greek  phrase  eis  ton  aiona,  is  rendered 
in  the  following  passages /oreuer.  In  Matth.xxi.  19, 
it  is  said  of  the  fig-tree,  "  let  no  fruit  grow  on  thee 
henceforward /oreyer."  See  also  Mark  xi.  14.  In 
Luke  i.  55,  it  is  said,  ^'  as  he  spake  to  our  fathers,  to 
Abraham,  and  to  his  seed  forever  J''  And  John  vi. 
51,  ''  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  for- 
ever." See  also  verse  58.  •  And  viii.  35,  "And  the 
servant  abideth  not  in  the  house  forever;  but  the  son 
abideih  ever."  John  xii.  34,  '•  We  have  heard  out  of 
the  law  that  Christ  abideth  forever."  And  xiv.  16, 
"  He  shall  give  you  another  comforter,  that  he  may 
abide  with  you  forever."  Heb.  v.  6,  '•  Thou  art  a 
priest  forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec."  And 
vi.  20,  and  vii.  IT,  21,  where  the  same  is  repeated. — 
Verse  24,  "  But  this  man,  because  he  continueth  ever, 
hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood."  Verse  28,  ''  but 
the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  since  the  law,  maketh 
the  son  who  is  consecrated  for  evermore."  1  Peter  i. 
23,  '•  Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed  but  in- 
corruptible, by  the  w^ord  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abi- 
deth forever."  And  1  John  ii.  17,  "  But  he  that  doeth 
the  will  of  God  abideth  forever."  And  2  John  2,  "  for 
the  truth's  sake  which  dwelleth  in  us,  and  shall  be  with 
us  forever."  See  some  other  texts  below^,  wdiere  this 
phrase  is  differently  rendered,  and  is  used  to  express 
the  duration  of  punishments 

On  all  these  texts,  where  this  phrase,  eis  tojiaiona, 
occurs,  we  would  rem.ark,  that  it  is  used  in  a  similar 
sense  as  olim  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  it  is  said  of 
certain  cities,  that  they  should  be  an  heap,  or  a  deso- 
lation forever;  such  as  the  example  of  the  fig-tree, 
which  passage  Dr.  Campbell  renders — "  let  no  fruit 
grow  on  thee  henceforward."  It  is  also  used  to  ex- 
press the  period  of  a  man's  lifetime,  as  in  the  Old  Tes- 


258  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

tament.  The  servant  or  slave  may  be  sold,  or  the 
year  of  release  may  «:et  him  free^  but  the  son  abidetb 
forever,  or  all  his  days.  And  whoever  compares  John 
xiv.  16  with  verses  1 — 5,  and  with  verse  12,  may  see 
reason  to  think  that  our  Lord's  meaning  was — the 
comforter  I  shall  send  you  will  not,  like  me,  leave  you 
before  you  die,  but  will  continue  to  be  with  you  all 
your  days.  Was  not  this  the  way  Christ  w^as  to  fulfil 
his  promise,  Matth.  xxviii.  20,  in  being  with  his  disci- 
ples unto  the  end  of  the  world  or  age  ?  See  on  this 
text  below.  Besides,  when  Paul  said  he  w^ouldeatno 
flesh  while  the  world  standeth,  did  he  mean  any  thing 
more  than  all  the  days  of  his  life  ?  In  this  sense  Mack- 
night  understands  him.  I  would  merely  suggest  it  for 
consideration,  if  his  meaning  is  not,  I  will  eat  no  flesh 
w^hile  the  age  or  Jewish  dispensation  endures,  which  was 
then  vanishing  away.  I  should  think  the  above  Greek 
phrase,  is  also  used  as  in  tlie  Old  Testament,  to  signify 
throughout  your  generations.  Such  seems  to  be  its 
sense  in  Luke  i.  55,  and  also  where  the  word  of  the 
Lord  is  said  to  endure  forever,  1  Peter  i.  23,  25,  and 
comp.  Heb.  ix.  14.  But  to  see  what  is  the  meaning 
of  the  phrase^  see  the  Seventy's  version,  from  whence 
it  is  taken.  Eis  ion  aiona  is  the  rendering  there  of 
olim  in  a  vast  number  of  instances,  which  it  would  be 
tedious  to  enumerate.  See  the  quotation  from  Pierce, 
on  Col.  i.  26,  above. 

The  phrase,  eis  fon&  aionas,  is  used  in  the  following 
places,  and  is  rendered  forever  and  for  evermore. — 
Matth.  vi.  13,  '•  for  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  pow- 
er, and  the  glory  forever."  Luke  i.  33,"  And  he  shall 
reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever.'^  Rom.  i.  25, 
"  and  served  the  creature  more  than  the  creator,  who 
is  blessed  forever."  Rom.  ix.  5,  "  who  is  overall  God 
blessed  forever."     And  xi.  36,  "  to  whom  be  glory 


AN    INQUIRY— PART    11.  259 

forever."  And  xvi.  27,  "  to  God  only  wise,  be  glory 
through  Jesus  Christ  forever."  2  Cor.  xi.  31,  "the 
God  and  father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  blessed 
for  evermore."  Heb.  xili.  8,  "  Jesus  Christ  the  same 
yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  forever."  Comp.  1  Tim.. 
vi.  16.  In  the  following  texts,  the  phrase  eis  tons 
aionas  occurs,  and  is  joined  with  ton  aiono?i,  and  ren- 
dered ^^ forever  and  ever,"  in  ascriptions  of  praise  to 
God  and  to  Christ.  Thus  for  example.  Gal.  i,  5,  "to 
whom  be  glory  forever  and  ever."  The  same  for  sub- 
stance is  repeated  in  the  following  texts,  which  it  is 
unnecessary  to  quote.  Philip,  iv.  20  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  18 ; 
Heb.  xiii.  21  ;  1  Peter  iv.  11,  and  v.  11  ;  Rev.  i.  6, 
18;  iv.  9,  10;  v.  13,  14;  vii.  12;  x.  6;  xi.  15  ;  xiv. 
11  ;  XV.  7  ;  xix.  3  ;  xx.  10,.  and  xxii.  5.  It  occurs 
also  in  1  Tim.  i.  17,  in  an  ascription  of  praise  to  God, 
which  I  shall  quote,  as  it  requires  some  notice.  "  Now 
unto  the  king  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only  wise 
God,  be  honor  and  glory  forever  and  ever."  When 
God  is  here  said  to  be  the  "  king  eternal,"  most  peo- 
ple think  the  apostle  meant  to  describe  the  endless  du- 
ration of  the  divine  being.  But  on  this  text  let  us 
hear  Macknio^ht,  who  thus  writes  :  "  Now  to  the  king 
eternal.  Perhaps,  to  de  baisilei  ton  aionon,  may  be 
better  translated,  to  the  king  of  the  ages,  namely,  the 
age  before  the  law,  the  age  under  the  law,  and  the 
age  under  the  Messiah,  According  to  this  translation, 
which  is  perfectly  literal,  the  apostle's  meaning  is.  To 
him  who  hath  governed  the  three  dispensations  under 
which  mankind  have  lived,  so  as  to  make  them  co- 
operate to  the  same  great  end,  the  pardoning  of  sin- 
ners, and  who  is  immortal,  he.  be  honor,  and  glory 
forever,  ascribed  by  angels  and  men."  There  is  no 
cause  for  alarm  with  good  people,  that  these  views  are 
attempting  to  do  away  the  eternal  duration  of  God,  for 


260  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

surely  his  endless  existence  is  independent  of  the  mean- 
ing of  a  Greek  word,  whether  you  give  it  a  limited  or 
an  unlimited  signification.  Besides,  in  this  very  pas- 
sage he  is  called  the  "  immortal  (^aftharto)  God,"  In 
some  copies  it  is  the  athanato,  or  undying  God.  No 
one  can  doubt  that  Macknight's  rendering  is  a  literal, 
correct  one.  The  apostle  is  then  rendering  praise  to 
God,  who  is  king  throughout  all  the  ages,  that  before 
the  law,  under  the  law,  and  the  age  also  of  the  Mes- 
siah. This  king  purposed  an  eternal  purpose,  Eph.iii. 
11,  which  Macknight  thus  renders,  "  according  to  the 
disposition  of  the  ages,  which  he  made  for  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord."  See  his  whole  note  on  Eph.  iii.  11,  part 
of  which  I  shall  only  quote.  Aion,  age,  is  a  word  of 
various  signification.  Here,  in  the  plural,  it  denotes 
the  dispensations  of  religion  under  which  mankind  have 
been  placed ;  namely,  the  Patriarchal,  in  which  a 
Saviour  was  promised  ;  the  Mosaical,  in  which  he  was 
typified  ;  and  the  Christian,  in  which  he  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh,  and  preached  to  the  world,  as  come. 
All  these  ages  or  dispensations,  the  apostle  saith,  God 
planned  and  brought  to  pass  for  the  sake  of  Christ 
Jesus  ;  that  is  to  prepare  mankind  for  his  reception. 
Rom.  xvi.  25  ;  Tit.  i.  2,  (see  the  note  on  that  verse,) 
chronoi  aionioi, ^\gn\^QS  the  ages  of  the  law,  or  Mo- 
saic dispensation.  And  Eph.  iii.  9  ;  Col.  i.  26,  aioiics, 
signifies  the  Jews,  living  under  tliat  dispensation." 

There  are  a  few  more  texts,  in  which  the  words 
everlasting  and  eternal  occur,  to  which  we  shall  now 
pay  some  attention,  in  connexion  with  these  quota- 
tions. When  God  is  called  the  king  of  the  ages,  the 
question  occurs — What  ages  ?  According  to  Ewing 
and  others,  the  answer  is,  the  age  before  the  law,  the 
Mosaic  age,  and  the  age  of  the  Messiah.  The  king 
of  the  ages  then,  disposed,  or  appointed  the  ages,  for 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  261 

Christ  Jesus.  Before  the  Mosaic  age,  a  promise  of 
life  was  given  in  Christ  Jesus,  Tit.  i.  2.  This  we  shall 
see  more  fully  afterwards.  It  was  promised  to  our  first 
parents  ;  also  to  Abraham,  that  in  his  seed  all  the 
famihes  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.  This  was  done 
during  the  patriarchal  age.  During  the  Mosaic  age, 
the  law  was  added  to  the  promise  until  the  seed  should 
come.  Many  things  connected  with  this  dispensation, 
we  have  seen,  were  called  everlasting,  but  having  an- 
swered the  purpose  for  which  they  were  added  to  the 
promise,  have  vanished  away.  The  age  of  the  Mes- 
siah succeeded  it,  but  it  is  to  be  succeeded  by  no  other. 
When  the  end  of  it  comes,  Christ  is  to  deliver  up  the 
kingdom  to  God  the  father,  which  appears  to  be  at  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 29.  Seve- 
ral thino-s  during  the  reign  or  kingdom  of  Messiah  in 
this  age,  is  called  everlasting  or  forever.  His  kingdom 
is  called  "  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Peter  i.  11.  And  surely  it 
may  be  called  so,  with  more  propriety  than  many 
things  under  the  Mosaic  age  or  dispensation,  for  this 
kingdom  is  not  to  be  superseded  by  another  taking  its 
place,  for  when  it  closes  it  is  said—"  then  cometh  the 
end." 

The  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  is  called 
"the  everlasting  gospel  preached  to  the  nations,"  Rev. 
xiv.  6.  And  why  is  it  called  everlasting  ?  Because 
it  shall  be  preached  as  long  as  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah shall  continue,  which  shall  be  to  the  period  called 
the  end.  Hence  it  is  said,  the  word  of  the  Lord  en- 
dureth  forever,  1  Peter  i.  23.  And  Christ  promised 
that  the  spirit  or  comforter  should  abide  with  his  disci- 
ples forever,  and  is  called  the  eternal  spirit,  Heb.  ix. 
14.  Some  copies,  however,  only  read  Holy  Spirit. — 
Such  as  believe  the  everlasting  gospel,  and  enter  into 


262  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

the  everlastincr  kingjdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  re- 
ceive  everlasting  consolation  and  good  hope  through 
grace,  2  Thess.  ii.  16.  Or,  as  Macknight  says — 
'/that  is,  the  means  of  never  failing  consolation."  To 
be  so  highly  honored  is  thus  expressed  by  Peter,  1st 
Epistle  V.  10,  "  The  God  of  all  grace,  who  hath  called 
us  unto  his  eternal  glory  by  Christ  Jesus."  Let  it  be 
observed,  that  eternal  glory  is  not  said  to  be  a  future 
thing,  but  that  to  which  Peter  says  they  were  already 
called.  They  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inherit- 
ance, Heb.  ix.  15.  If  the  land  of  Canaan  was  given 
to  Israel,  and  called  an  everlasting  inheritance,  as  it 
often  is  in  the  Old  Testament,  how  much  more  might 
the  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ  bestow- 
ed on  Christians,  be  called  an  eternal  inheritance  ?  It 
should  be  recollected  that  the  apostle  was  writing  to 
Hebrews,  to  whom  such  lano;uao[e  was  familiar.  Be- 
sides,  this,  we  shall  afterwards  see,  is  the  same  that  our 
Lord  calls  enjoying  eternal  life  in  the  world  to  come. 
And  is  it  not  the  same  that  Paul  calls  inheriting  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  of  Christ,  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10  ;  Gal. 
v.  21  ? 

The  new  covenant,  like  the  covenants  under  the 
Mosaic  age,  is  called  the  everlasting  covenant.  And 
surely  it  may  be  called  so,  for  it  is  not  to  vanish  away, 
and  give  place  to  a  new  and  better  covenant,  like  that 
of  the  old.  Christ's  blood  was  that  by  which  this  new 
covenant  was  confirmed,  and  is  called  the  blood  of  the 
everlasting  covenant,  Heb.  xiii.  20.  Having  purged 
his  people,  not  as  under  the  law  with  the  blood  of  goats 
and  calves,  "  but  by  his  own  blood,  he  entered  in  once 
unto  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemp- 
tion," Heb.  ix.  12.  "  And  being  made  perfect  through 
suffering,  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all 
them  that  obey  him,"  Heb.   v.   9.     Christ's  salvation 


AN     INQUIRY PART    II.  263 

is  called  a  great  salvation,  Heb.  ii.  3,  probably  in  re- 
ierence  to  other  salvations  which  God  wrought  for  an- 
cient Israel.  And  here  it  is  called  eternal  in  tliesame 
comparative  sense,  for  God  wrought  many  salvations 
for  them.  This  salvation  was  abiding.  Comp.  Luke 
i.  74,  75.  Is  it  asked — Salvation  from  what?  I  an- 
swer, not  from  hell  and  endless  misery,  for  this  is  no 
where  said  in  Scripture,  but  from  sin  and  death,  which 
Christ  shall  finally  accomplish.     See  1  Cor.  15. 

In  2  Peter  iii.  18,  we  have  the  following  ascription 
of  praise.  "  To  whom  be  glory  both  now  and  forever." 
The  Greek  here  is  cis  hemeran  aionios.  Macknight 
says  this  is  "  unto  the  day  of  eternity."  But  how 
can  this  be,  for  what  has  eternity  to  do  with  days? — 
Besides,  how  does  this  a^iYee  to  some  quotations  made 
from  him  respecting  aion,  which  he  says  means  an  age. 
We  should  say  the  text  simply  says — "  to  him  be  glory 
both  now  and  unto  the  day  of  the  age."  Some  copies 
have  it,  "  unto  the  age  of  ages,"  similar  to  passages 
noticed  above.  We  should  think  the  duration  express- 
ed is  '■  during  the  age  of  the  Messiah,"  Luke  xvi.  9, 
"  That  when  ye  fail  they  may  receive  you  into  ever- 
lasting habitations."  Dr.  Campbell  says,  "  the  epithet 
unrighteous,  here  applied  to  mammon  or  riches,  does 
not  imply  acquired  by  injustice  or  any  undue  means  ; 
but,  in  this  application,  it  denotes  false  riches,  that  is, 
deceitful,  not  to  be  relied  on."  Well,  does  not  the 
epithet  everlasthig,  applied  to  habitations,  mean  stable 
and  satisfactory?  See  on  Psalm  xlix.  11,  and  on  2 
Thess.  ii.  16,  and  other  texts  above.  But  as  it  is  ap- 
plied, not  to  punishment,  but  to  happiness,  it  requires 
no  further  attention. 

2  Cor,  iv.  17,  18,  and  v.  1,1  shall  quote  together. 
"For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  but  lor  a  moment, 
worketh  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding;  and  eternal  weight 


264 


AN    INQ^UIRY PART    II. 


of  glory  ;  while  we  look  not  at  the  things  which  are 
seen,  but  at  the  things  which  are  not  seen  :  for  the 
things  which  are  seen  are  temporal  ;  but  the  things 
which  are  not  seen  are  enternal.  For  we  know,  that 
if  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved, 
we  have  a  building  of  God,  an  house  not  made  with 
hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens."  In  these  verses,  ifZo?'?/ 
is  contrasted  with  affliction,  weis^ht  of  glory  \\\i\\~light 
affliction,  and  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight 
of  glory,  with  affliction  which  is  but  for  a  moment, — 
Besides,  things  which  are  not  seen,  are  contrasted  with 
things  which  are  seen,  and  the  eternal  duration  of 
things  not  seen,  with  the  temporary  duration  of  things 
which  are  seen  ;  and  an  house  not  made  ivith  hands,  is 
contrasted  with  the  house  of  this  tabernacle,  and  the 
house  not  iDade  with  hands  eternal  in  the  heavens,  with 
the  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle.  But  notice,  the 
duration  of  these  things  is  said  to  be  in  the  heavens, 
and  we  tliink  could  be  shown  from  the  context,  to  re- 
fer to  that  state  of  things  after  the  resurrection,  when 
mortality  is  swallowed  up  of  life,  verse  4.  See  the 
whole  context,  and  a  paper  in  volume  vii.  of  the  Uni- 
versalist  Mag:izine  on  verse  10.  Tl^e  idea  conveyed 
by  the  word  eternal  in  all  these  verses,  seems  to  be  the 
stability  of  the  things  of  that  state  compared  to  those 
of  tiie  present.  Though  the  idea  of  their  endless  du- 
ration is  included,  yet  the  apostle's  object  seems  to  be 
more  their  stahiliti/  tlian  their  endless  duration.  But 
as  these  passages  have  no  relation  to  punishment,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  enter  into  further  remarks,  except  to 
say,  that  the  same  or  similar  things  are  not  said  in  re- 
gard to  the.  punishment  of  any  after  the  dissolution  of 
their  eailhly  tabernacle.  This  we  shall  see  in  Section 
vii.,  where  all  the  passages  are  considered  where  eter- 
nal is  applied  to  punishment. 


1 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  265 


SECTION  VI. 

ALL  THE  PLACES  AVHERE   AION  AND   AfONIOS    ARE    REN- 
DERED WORLD,   CONSIDERED. 

I  FIND  tlie  Greek  phrase,  eis  ton  aiona,  rendered 
world,  1  Cor.  viii.  13.  "If  meat  make  my  brother  to 
offend,  I  will  eat  no  meat  while  the  world  standeth." 
Here  the  same  Greek  phrase  is  rendered  world,  which 
we  have  seen,  is  rendered  never,  forever,  and  for  ever- 
more. And  why  is  it  so  rendered  here  ?  Because,  it 
would  not  do  to  say — "  I  will  eat  no  flesh  while  the 
never,  forevej-,  or  everlasting  standeth."  It  is  plain 
that  this  phrase  did  not  express  endless  duration  by 
the  sacred  writers. 

In  Heb.  i.  2,  and  xi.  3,  we  have  the  phrase  tons 
aionas,  and  is  rendered  worlds.  "  By  whom  also  he 
made  the  worlds.  Through  faith  we  understand  that 
the  worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God."  On  the 
first  of  these  texts  Pierce  says.  "If  we  render  the 
words  b}'-  whom  also  he  appointed  the  ages,  the  sense 
will  fall  in  with  Eph.  iii.  11.  See  Mr.  Locke  upon 
that  verse."  See  on  this  passage  in  the  last  Section. 
On  the  second,  Macknight  says  it  is  literally — "  scsciih, 
the  ages."  Ewing  renders  it,  "By  faith  we  under- 
stand the  ages  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God." — 
Those  ages,  he  says,  were  reckoned  three — "  that  be- 
fore the  law,  that  under  the  law,  and  that  under  the 
Messiah," 

Eph.  iii.  21.  "Unto  him  be  glory  in  the  church, 
by  Christ  Jesus^  throughout  all  ages;  world  without 


Q66  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

end."  The  Greek  here  is  eis  pasas  tas  geneas  ton 
aionos  ion  aionon,  Macknlght  says,  this  phrase  lite- 
rally is — "  throughout  all  the  generations  of  the  age  of 
ages."  I5  a  proper  eternity  measured  by  generations  ? 
Surely  not.  By  the  age  of  ages  seems  to  be  meant 
the  duration  of  Messiah's  reign,  or  until  he  delivers 
up  the  kingdom  to  God  the  father,  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 
28.  Until  then,  God  is  to  be  glorified  in  the  church 
bv  Christ  Jesus,  I  would  su>rirest  it  for  considera- 
tion — Is  not  the  age  of  the  Messiah  called  the  age  of 
ages,  in  a  similar  sense  as  he  is  called  "  king  of  kings 
and  Lord  of  Lords  ?"  The  ao-e  of  the  Messiah  was 
that  for  whirh  all  the  others  were  constituted,  shall  con- 
tinue throughout  all  the  generations  of  this  world,  and 
is  to  be  superseded  by  no  other,  like  the  ages  which 
have  preceded  it. 

The  word  aion  is  not  only  rendered  world,  but  we 
read  both  of  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  world  or 
age  ;  the  one  class  precisely  answering  to  the  other. — 
Let  us  first  notice  the  texts  which  speak  of  the  begin- 
ning  of  the  age  or  world.     Eph.  iii.   9.     "  And  to 
make  all  men  see,  what  is  the  fellowship  of  the  mys- 
tery, which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  hath  been 
hid  in  God,  who  created  all  tilings  by  Jesus  Christ." 
Wakefield  renders  it  thus,  ''  was  hidden  from  the  ages 
in  God."     Macknight  in   his  note  on  this  text  says, 
'-'  Hid  from  the  ages.      So  the  original  phrase  a/;o  ton 
aionon  ought  to  be  translated,  as  is  plain  from  Col.  i. 
26,  where  generations  are  also  mentioned."     To  ren- 
der aio7i  here  by  any  word  implying  endless  duration, 
would  make  the  apostle  speak  of  the  beginning  of  the 
everlasting  or  eternal  duration,  which  would  be  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.     Tit.  i.  2.     ''  In  hope  of  eternal 
life,  which  God   that  cannot  lie,  promised  before  the 
world  began  "    Wakefield  renders  it  '•  promised  before 


AN    INQUIRY PART   II.  267 

the  ages."  Macknight,  on  this  text,  says,  "  Before 
the  times  of  the  ages.  Pro  chronon  aionion.  Sup- 
posing the  word  aionios  in  this  clause  to  signify  eter- 
nal, the  literal  translation  of  the  passage  would  be, 
before  eternal  times.  But  that  being  a  contiadiction 
in  terms,  our  translators,  contrary  to  the  propiiety  of 
the  Greek  language,  have  rendered  it — before  the  world 
began:  As  Locke  observes,  on  Rom.  xvi.  25,  the  true 
literal  translation  is,  before  the  secular  times ;  referring 
us  to  the  Jewish  jubilees,  by  which  times  were  compu- 
ted among  the  Hebrews  :  as  among  the  Gentiles  they 
were  compute'd  by  generations  of  men.  Hence,  Col. 
i.  26  :  The  mystery  which  ivas  kept  hid,  {apo  ton 
aioiion  Icai  apo  ton  geneon,)  from,  the  ages  and  from 
the  gentrations,  signifies  the  mystery  which  was  kept 
hid  from  the  Jews  and  from  the  Gentiles.  See  this  ex- 
plained Rom.  xvi.  25,  note  iii."  Whitby's  note  is  for 
substance,  the  same.  Did  God  promise  eternal  life  be- 
fore the  evfilasting  or  the  eternity  began  ?  The  same 
or  similar  remarks  apply  to  Rom.  xvi.  25  "  Accord^ 
ing  to  the  revelation  of  the  mystery,  which  was  kept 
secret  since  the  world  be^an."  Wakefield  renders  it, 
"  which  was  kept  secret  from  the  ages  of  old."  See 
Macknight  on  Rom.  xvi.  25.  Luke  i.  70.  "  As  he 
spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  which  have 
been  since  the  world  began."  Permit  me  to  ask  : 
Has  God  spoken  by  his  holy  prophets  which  have  been 
since  the  everlasting  or  eternity  began  ?  Who  believes 
eternity  has  a  beginning?  Accordingly,  Wakefield 
renders  it  '^  from  the  first."  In  his  note  he  says,  "  ap 
aionos"  signifies  "or  of  old,  literally,  from  the  age." 
Dr.  Campbell  renders  it  :  "  as  anciently  he  promised 
by  his  holy  prophets  ;"  and  Whitby,  *'  from  the  be- 
ginning of  ages."  Acts  iii.  2L  "Which  God  hath 
spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since 


268  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

the  world  began."  The  Greek  phrase  is  the  same 
here  as  in  the  last  text,  and  is  rendered  in  the  sancie 
way,  and  the  same  remarks  apply  to  it,  and  need  not 
be  repeated.  See  Macknight  on  Romans  xvi.  25. — 
In  Acts  XV.  18.  The  Greek  is  the  same  as  in  the  last 
text,  which  saves  all  labor  of  transcribing  or  remarks. 
John  ix.  32.  "  Since  the  world  began  was  it  not  heard, 
that  any  man  opened  the  eyes  of  one  that  was  born 
blind."  Wakefield  renders  it,  "  never  was  it  heard 
yet ;"  and  Dr.  Campbell  has  it,  "  never  was  it  heard 
before."  See  on  the  preceding  texts.  2  Tim.  i.  9. 
"  Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  an  holy  call- 
ing, not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his 
own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ 
Jesus,  hefore  the  world  began."  The  Greek  phrase 
here,  is  pro  chronon  aionion,  which  Wakefield  renders 
"  before  the  age."  Whitby,  "  before  any  age  hath 
passed."  Macknight,  "  before  the  times  of  the  ages." 
See  his  note  quoted  on  Tit.  i.  2,  above.  1  Cor.  ii.  7. 
"  But  we  speak  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,  even 
the  hidden  wisdom, which  God  ordained  before  the  world 
unto  our  glory."  The  Greek  here,  is  pro  ton  aionon, 
Macknio[ht  renders  it,  "  before  the  aijes."  He  under- 
stands  it,  "  before  the  Mosaic  dispensation."  See  his 
notes  on  Rom.  xvi.  25;  Eph.  iii.  9,  and  Col.  i.  26, 
above. 

Such  are  all  the  places  where  the  phrases,  the  be- 
frinnino-of  the  world — from  the  beirinnino;  of  the  world 

Oct  O  o 

— before  the  world — and  since  the  world  began,  oc- 
cur.    On  the  whole  of  them  I  would  remark, 

1st.  That  in  none  of  them  is  there  any  reference, 
as  many  suppose,  to  this  material  world,  or  its  begin- 
ning. The  word  aion  rendered  world,  signifies,  by  the 
consent  of  the  above  critics,  and  others,  which  might 
be   quoted,  simply  age.     Since  the  world   began,  is 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  269 

since  the  age  began.  Before  the  world,  signifies  be- 
fore ihe  age,  and  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
means  from  the  bes^inninor  of  the  as^e.  If  it  be  asked, 
what  age  ?  The  answer  is,  the  age  or  dispensation  of 
the  law  of  Moses.  If  this  be  true,  and  it  is  indisputa- 
ble, all  must  see  what  a  great  chana^e  it  makes  in  the 
sense  of  all  the  above  passages.  Besides,  it  deeply 
affects  the  sense  of  many  others,  and  affords  a  key  to 
the  understanding  of  some,  which  we  shall  presently 
notice.  So  far  from  aion  signifying  this  material  world, 
the  above  critics  have  shown,  that  our  translators,  con- 
trary to  the  propriety  ol  the  Greek  language,  have 
rendered  Tit.  ii.  2,  "  before  the  world  began,"  which 
remark  applies  equally  to  the  other  passages.  They 
have  shown,  that  it  refers  to  the  dispensation  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  which,  as  Locke  observes,  is  called  aion, 
the  age,  Luke  i.  70;  Acts  iii.  2L  And  chronos 
aionioi,  because,  under  the  law,  time  was  measured  by 
ages  or  jubilees.     See  all  the  abovequotations. 

2d.  The  word  for  this  "  material  world,"  is  kosmos, 
and  not  aion.  And  the  Greek  phrase  for  "before'the 
world,"  meaning  this  material  world,  is  pro  tnu  ton  kos- 
rnon.  See  John  xvii,  5.  Besides,  where  it  is  used  it 
is  never  contrasted  with  aion.  For  example,  the  be- 
ginning of  the  kosmos,  world,  is  never  contrasted  with 
the  end  of  the  aion,  or  age,  nor,  the  beginning  of  the 
aion,  age,  contrasted  with  the  end  of  the  kosmos, 
world. 

3.  Every  person  must  perceive  the  absurdity  of 
rendering  aion  in  any  of  the  above  texts,  by  any  Eng- 
lish word  which  conveys  the  idea  of  endless  duration. 
Were  it  done,  we  should  read  of  the  beginning  of  the 
everlasting,  or  forever,  and  of  things  which  were  done 
before  the  everlasting  or  forever  began  ;  yea,  of  things 
which  God  ordained  before  the  everlasting  or  forever 
18 


270  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

Let  any  one  go  over  all  those  passages,  and  he  cannot 
help  being  convinced,  that  the  sacred  writers  attached 
no  such  idea  to  this  word.  Are  not  men  very  much 
to  blame,  then,  in  being  so  very  confident,  that  aion 
expresses  the  endless  duration  of  punishment  ?  By 
the  general  consent  of  critics  and  commentators,  yea, 
by  the  very  scope  of  the  above  passages,  aion  signifies 
age.  We  ought  not,  then,  very  hastily  to  abandon  this 
as  its  meaning  in  other  places,  unless  it  is  certainly 
shown,  that  this  cannot  be  its  sense,  but  means  end- 
less duration. 

Let  us  now  pay  attention  to  another  class  of  texts, 
which  speak  of  the  "  end  of  the  world  or  age,"  and 
correspond  to  the  above,  which  speak  of  the  "  begin- 
ning of  the  world  or  age."  This  is  nothing  more  than 
might  be  expected,  unless  the  Jewish  age  or  dispensa- 
tion was  to  be  of  endless  duration.  Matt.  xxiv.  3. 
''  Tell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be  ?  And  what 
shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of 
the  world  ?"  The  Greek  phrase  here  for  "  the  end  of 
the  world,"  is  sunteleia  iou  aionos.  Dr.  Campbell 
renders  it — "  the  conclusion  of  this  state  ;"  and  both 
Wakefield  and  Macknight — "  the  end  of  the  age." — 
Indeed,  all  the  critics  and  commentators  wliich  1  have 
ever  seen,  allow  that  this  phrase  means  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  age  or  dispensation.  The  whole  discourse  in 
which  it  occurs  shows  that  this  is  a  correct  view  of  the 
expression.  In  a  case  so  obvious,  it  would  be  useless 
to  spend  time  in  a  formal  proof  of  it.  I  may  just 
notice,  to  understand  aion  here  to  mean  endless  dura- 
tion of  time,  would  represent  the  disciples  as  asking 
our  Lord  to  tell  them,  what  should  be  the  sign  of  his 
coming,  and  of  "  the  end  of  the  everlasting  or  endless 
duration."  But  if  it  means  age,  it  ought  to  be  under^ 
Stood  so  in  other  places^  unless  good  rei^spns  can  be^ 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  271 

offered  why  it  ought  to  be   differently  understood. — 
The  next  passage  where  it  occurs  is. 

Matt.  xiii.  36 — 42.  "  Then  Jesus  sent  the  multitude 
away,  and  went  into  the  house:  and  his  disciples  came 
unto  him,  saying,  Declare  unto  us  the  parable  of  the 
tares  of  the  field.  He  answered  and  said  unto  them. 
He  that  soweth  the  good  seed  is  the  Son  of  Man  :  the 
field  is  the  world  :  the  good  seed  are  the  children  of 
the  kingdom ;  but  the  tares  are  the  children  of  the 
wicked  one  :  the  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil : 
the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world;  and  the  reapers 
are  the  angels.  As.  therefore  the  tares  are  gathered 
and  burned  in  the  fire ;  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this 
world,  The  Son  of  Man  shall  send  forth  his  angels, 
and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things 
that  offend,  and  them  which  do  Iniquity  ;  and  shall 
cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire:  there  shall  be  wailing 
and  gnashing  of  teeth."  Precisely,  the  same  Greek 
phrase  as  in  the  last  text,  occurs  twice  in  this  passage, 
and  is  rendered,  in  the  common  version,  in  a  similar 
manner.  Wakefield  and  Dr.  Campbell  render  it  in 
the  same  way,  '^  fhe  conclusion  of  this  age,"  and  "the 
conclusion  of  this  state."  But  it  is  referred,  by  some, 
to  the  end  of  this  material  world,  when  all  the  wicked 
shall  be  cast  into  a  furnace  of  fire,  or  into  hell.  But 
is  this  treatino-  the  lancruao^e  of  the  inspired  writers  with 
common  respect  ?  What  man  would  put  up  with  hav- 
ing his  words  so  interpreted  ?  But  that  the  phrase, 
"  the  end  of  the  w^orld,"  has  the  same  sense  here  as 
in  the  preceding  passage  1  shall  now  briefly  show.--r 
The  things  which  demand  particular  attention  ai^ 

1st.  The  field  in  which  ijoth  these  seeds  are  said  to 
be  sown.  It  is  said  expressly,  "  the  field  is  the  world." 
The  word  for  world  here  is  Jcosmos,  and  not  aion^ 
which  is  alsQ  rendered  world,  yerses^  39,  40.     JXqw^ 


272  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

let  it  be  particularly  observed,  that  in  these  two  verses 
where  it  is  said,  "  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world," 
and  "  in  the  end  of  the  world,"  when  the  tares  were 
to  be  gathered,  it  is  not  the  end  of  the  Jcosmos,  world, 
or  field,  in  which  the  seeds  were  sown,  but  the  end  of 
the  aion,  or  age,  as  in  Matt.  xxiv.  3.  Our  Lord  de- 
clared that  the  end  of  this  world,  or  age,  was  to  take 
place  during  that  generation.  But  in  order  to  make 
out  the  common  opirion,  our  Lord  should  have  said, 
verses  39,  40,  "  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  'kosmos, 
or  field,  in  which  the  two  seeds  were  sown  :  and  that 
in  the  end  of  this  kosmos,  world,  the  tares  should  be 
gathered  and  burned."  But  not  a  word  is  said  about 
the  end  of  the  field,  but  only  the  end  of  the  aion,  or 
age,  which  many  of  that  generation  lived  to  see. 

2d.  Where  this  furnace  of  fire  was  and  in  what  it 
consisted,  into  which  the  tares  were  cast  at  the  end  of 
the  age.  This  furnace  of  fire  is  commonly  believed  to 
be  in  a  future  state  of  existence,  and  is  just  another 
expression  for  hell  fire.  But  all  this  is  taken  for 
granted,  which  certainly  ought  to  be  proved.  Where 
then  was  it?  Let  the  Scriptures  answer  the  question. 
In  Isai.  xxxi.  9,  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  whose  fire  is  In 
ZIon  and  whose  furnace  is  in  Jerusalem."  It  should 
be  remembered,  that  our  Lord  spoke  to  the  Jews  who 
had  the  Old  Testament  in  their  handb,  and  without 
doubt  knew  that  God  had  thus  spoken  by  the  prophet. 
But  it  may  be  asked,  How  was  God's  furnace  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  in  what  did  It  consist?  Ezek.xxii.  17 — 23, 
will  inform  us  of  this — '■  And  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came  unto  me,  saying.  Son  of  man,  the  house  of  Israel 
is  to  me  become  dross  ;  all  they  are  brass,  and  tin,  and 
iron,  and  lead,  in  the  midst  of  the  furnace  ;  they  are 
even  the  dross  of  silver.  Therefore,  thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  Because  ye  are  all  become  dross,  behold, 


AN    INQUIRY PART    11.  '  273 

therefore,  I  will  gather  you  into  the  midst  of  Jerusa- 
lem. As  they  gather  silver,  and  brass,  and  iron,  and 
lead,  and  tin,  into  the  midst  of  the  furnace,  to  blow  the 
fire  upon  it,  to  melt  It ;  so  will  I  gather  you  in  my  an- 
ger, and  in  my  fury,  and  T  w^ill  leave  you  there,  and 
melt  you.  Yea,  I  will  gather  you  and  blow  upon  you 
in  the  fire  of  my  wrath,  and  ye  shall  be  melted  in  the 
midst  thereof  As  silver  is  melted  in  the  midst  of  the 
furnace,  so  shall  ye  be  melted  in  the  midst  thereof; 
and  ye  shall  know  that  I  the  Lord  have  poured  out 
my  fuiy  upon  you."  Who  can  read  this  passage  with- 
out perceiving  where  this  furnace  wa^,  in  w4iat  it  con- 
sisted, and  also  who  were  cast  into  it  ?  Permit  me 
briefly  to  notice  the  following  things  from  this  passage, 
in  connexion  with  our  Lord's  explanation  of  the  para- 
ble under  consideration.  The  prophet  and  our  Lord 
both  spoke  of  the  same  persons,  the  Jews.  At  the 
end  of  the  age,  as'  the  prophet  had  declared,  the  whole 
Jewish  nation  had  become  ''  dross J^  With  the  ex- 
ception of  believers  in  Jesus,  the  nation  of  the  Jews 
exactly  corresponded  to  this  description  of  them. — 
This  one  fact  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  the  prophet 
and  our  Lord,  had  respect  to  the  same  time,  people, 
and  punishment.  Our  Lord  seems  to  borrow  his  very 
language,  in  regard  .to  the  furnace  of  fire,  from  the 
prophet.  Further,  it  was  at  the  end  of  the  age,  or 
Jewish  dispensation,  God  brought  such  dreadful  mise- 
ries on  the  Jewish  nation,  described  under  the  figure  of 
a  furnace  of  fire.  Ezekiel  declared  that  God  would 
gather  the  Jewish  nation  into  Jerusalem  as  men 
"  gather  metals  into  the  midst  of  a  furnace."  This 
was  literally  fulfilled.  With  the  strictest  propriety  it 
might  be  said,  that  God  gathered  them,  for  it  was  in 
obedience  to  the  command  of  God  the  whole  nation 
were  assembled   at  the  feast  of  the  passover,  when 


274  AN    INQUIRY — PART    II. 

Titus  surrounded  the  city,  and  from  which  they  could 
not.  make  their  escape.  They  had  indeed  become 
d?'oss,  and  into  this  furnace  they  were  gathered  to  be 
melted  as  metals  are  gathered  to  be  melted  in  the 
midst  of  a  furnace.  Well,  how  did  God  melt  them  ? 
This  is  figurative  language,  and  is  thus  explained,  verse 
22,  ''  And  ye  shall  know  that  1,  the  Lord,  have  poured 
out  my  fury  upon  you."  Upon  that  generation  of  the 
Jews  came  all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth, 
Matt,  xxiii.  25.  Then  was  great  "  tribulation,  such 
as  was  not  since  the  be^inninf^  of  the  world  unto  this 
lime,  no,  nor  ever-shall  be,"  Matt.  xxiv.  21.  See  also 
1  Thess.  ii.  16.  If  any  one  wishes  to  see  how  God 
melted  them  like  metals  in  this  furnace,  or  how  the 
tares  w^ere  cast  into  this  furnance  to  be  burnt,  at  the 
end  of  the  age,  let  him  consult  Josephus'  account  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  The  above  passage  in 
Ezekiel,  the  24th  of  Matthew,  and  the  passage  before 
us,  all  had  their  fulfilment  in  the  unheard  of  calamities 
which  came  on  that  people.  There  was  indeed,  at 
this  period,  weeping,  and  wailing,  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,  as  our  Lord  declared. 

But  the  following;  w^ords  strono;lv  confirm  the  above 
remarl^s.  At  verse  43,  our  Lord  said,  "  Then  shal) 
the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of 
their  father."  At  the  end  of  the  age,  when  such  mise- 
ries came  on  the  unbelieving  Jews,  the  righteous,  or 
Christ's  disciples,  did  shine  forth  in  the  kingdom  of 
their  father.  Observing  the  signs  of  the  approaching 
calamities.  Matt,  xxiv.,  they  left  the  city  and  were  pre- 
served, as  stated  by  IMacknight  on  this  chapter.  Our 
Lord  told  them,  Luke  xxi.  28.  '*  When  these  things 
begin  to  come  to  pass,  then  look  up,  and  lift  up  your 
heads ;  for  your  redemption  draweth  nigh."  Previ- 
ous to  this,  Christians  suffered  the  most  severe  perse- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  275 

cutions  from  the  Jews,  but  then  they  had  rest  from 
their  persecutors.  At  that  period  the  kingdom  of  God 
came  with  power.  Christ  was  glorified  in  them,  and 
they  were  glorified  in  him.  See  on  2  Thess.  chap,  i., 
below.  In  the  words — "  then  shall  the  righteous 
shine  forth  in  the  kingdom  of  their  father,"  there  seems 
to  be  an  allusion  to  Dan.  xii.  ,2,  which  has  been  shown, 
refers  to  the  same  time  and  events. 

Such  is  a  brief  statement  of  our  views  of  this  pas- 
sage. In  confirmation  of  them  I  would  add  the  fol- 
lowing. It  has  been  shown  that  the  temporal  judg- 
ments of  God  on  the  Jewish  nation  are  set  forth  under 
the  figure  of  a  furnace  of  fire.  Now,  we  call  on  any 
man  to  produce  a  single  passage,  where  a  punishment 
in  a  future  state  of  existence,  is  described  under  such 
a  figure.  It  will  not  do  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  it 
is  done  by  our  Lord  in  this  passage,  and  in  face  of 
the  evidence  we  have  adduced  to  the  contrary.  No  ; 
let  proof  be  brought  forward  that  this  is  his  meaning. 
Let  it  be  accounted  for,  why  the  temporal  calamities 
which  came  on  the  Jewish  nation  are  spoken  of  under 
the  figure  of  a  furnace  of  fire,  yet  future  eternal  pun- 
ishment is  never  so  represented  in  the  Scripture  ? — 
Besides,  let  some  reason  be  given  why  the  same 
Greek  phrase,  rendered  the  end  of  the  world,  Matt. 
xxiv.  3,  and  allowed  to  mean  the  end  of  the  age  or 
Jewish  dispensation,  should  not  also  mean  the  very 
same  thing  in  the  passage  before  us  ?  Scripture  usage, 
both  as  to  this  phrase  and  the  furnace  of  fire,  is  against 
the  common  opinion,  and  in  favor  of  the  views  I  have 
advanced.  It  is  very  evident  also  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  a  separation 
was  to  take  place,  and  is  represented  under  various 
figures,  as  well  as  in  plain  language.  In  the  passage 
before  us,  this  separation  between  the  rigliteous  and 


276  AN    IN^UIRl PART    II. 

the  wicked,  is  represented  by  separating  tares  and 
wheat.  In  others,  separating  chaff  and  wheat,  good 
and  bad  fish,  he.  The  question  is — Did  a  separa- 
tion take  place  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  answer- 
able to  these  figurative  representations  ?  I  answer  yes. 
The  whole  Jewish  nation  were  like  chaff  and  wheat 
promiscuously  on  the  same  floor,  whether  believers  in 
Christ,  or  unbelievers.  Or  like  good  and  bad  fish  in 
the  same  net,  or  as  lares  and  wheat  ojiowin^  in  the 
same  field.  But  at  the  end  of  the  age  a  separation 
did  take  place,  when  the  Jews  were  scattered  among 
all  nations,  and  the  separation  between  them  and 
Christians,  or  children  of  the  kingdom,  has  continued 
to  this  day. 

It  is  very  evident,  that  aion,  in  this  passage,  could 
not  well  be  rendered  by  any  word  signifying  endless 
duration.  If  it  were,  it  would  make  our  Lord  to  say, 
^'  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  everlasting  or  forever," 
and,  "  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this  everlasting  or 
forever."  But  who  would  impute  such  things  to  him, 
who  spake  as  never  man  spake  ?  To  suppose  he  did, 
would  make  a  plurality  of  fore  vers  ;  for  this  forever 
implies  another  forever.  Besides,  it  shows  that  forever 
is  to  end,  and  that  the  endless  punishment  of  the 
wicked  is  only  to  begin  at  the  end  of  the  forever, 
if  the  furnace  of  fire  means  hell  fire  in  another  state 
of  existence. 

Any  objections  which  have  occurred  to  the  views 
advanced,  I  shall  state  and  answer. 

1st.  "  How,  upon  your  views,  could  it  be  said,  that 
the  devil  sowed  the  tares  among  the  wheat  ?"  If 
this  be  any  objection  against  my  views,  it  lies  equally 
against  the  common  view  taken  of  this  passage.  If 
my  views  of  the  devil  be  correct,  this  objection  has  no 
force. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  277 

2d.  "  Upon  your  views  of  this  passage,  bow  are  an- 
gels to  reap  the  harvest  at  the  end  of  the  age?"  In 
reply,  let  it  be  noticed,  that  the  term  angel  simply  sig- 
nifies a  messenger.  Let  any  one  consult  Whitby  or 
Mackniffht,  and  he  will  see  that  the  angels  here  refer- 
red to  were  not  angelic  spirits,  but  human  messen- 
gers. He  will  also  see  how  the  separation  at  the  end 
of  the  age  was  effected  by  them.  But  see  on  Matt. 
XXV.,  below, 

3d.  "Why  was  the  temporal  miseries  which  came 
on  the  Jews  represented  under  the  figure  of  a  furnace 
of  fire  ?"  Answer  ;  for  a  very  good  reason.  A  fur- 
nace of  hre  was  the  severest  punishment  which  an 
eastern  despot  could  devise.  See  Daniel  iii.  The 
temporal  judgments  which  came  on  the  Jews  at  the 
end  of  the  age  were  such  as  the  like  had  never 
been  before,  nor  shall  the  like  ever  be  again.  The 
most  severe  eastern  punishment,  a  furnace  of  fire,  is 
therefore  chosen  to  describe  them.  See  Mark  xiii, 
19,  20. 

Matt.  xiii.  47 — 50.  The  same  Greek  phrase  as  in 
the  two  preceding  texts  occurs  here,  and  is  rendered 
in  the  same  way.  As  our  Lord  is  only  illustrating 
the  same  things,  and  uses  the  very  same  figure  of 
a  furnace  of  fire,  we  forbear  transcribing  it,  or  re- 
marking on  it.  The  remarks  made  on  the  last  passage 
are  sufficient. 

Matt,  xxviii.  20.  "Teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
Precisely  the  same  Greek  phrase  occurs  here  as  in  the 
foregoing  texts,  and  is  rendered  the  same  way  in  the 
common  version.  Wakefield  renders  it — "  the  con- 
clusion of  the  age;"  and  Campbell — "the  conclu- 
sion of  this  state."     Parkhurst  considers   the  Greek 


278  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

phrase  here  as  referring  to  the  end  of  the  age  of  the 
Messiahj  and  as  equivalent  to  the  end  of  this  world, 
yet  precisely  the  same  phrase,  Matt.  xxiv.  3,  he  says 
signifies  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  or  dispensation. — 
But  I  ask — Why  depart  from  the  obvious  sense  of  this 
expression,  Matt.  xxiv.  3  ?  Scripture  usage  ought  not 
to  be  departed  from  without  good  reasons.  What  leads 
to  such  a  departure  here,  probably,  is,  that  to  say  "the 
end  of  the  world"  means  the  end  of  the  age  or  Jewish 
dispensation,  would  limit  Christ's  promise  to  be  with 
his  disciples  to  this  period.  This  would  not  certainly 
follow.  But  I  shall  proceed  to  show  that  in  the  sense 
Christ  here  promised  to  be  with  his  disciples,  it 
was  not  needed  beyond  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation. 

It  seems  to  be  overlooked  that  our  Lord  was  here 
addressing  himself  to  the  eleven  apostles.  Nor  is  it 
sufficiently  understood  in  what  sense  he  promised  to  be 
with  them  unto  the  end  of  the  age.  If  verse  16,  and 
the  parallel  texts  are  consulted,  it  appears  that  the 
apostles  are  the  persons  of  whom  he  speaks,  and  he 
promised  to  be  with  them  in  a  sense  he  never  was,  and 
never  will  be  again  vv'ith  any  other  persons.  He  was 
with  them,  in  teaching  them  the  doctrine  and  laws  of 
his  kingdom,  and  enabling  them  to  work  miracles  in 
proof  of  their  being  his  ambassadors  to  the  world.  But 
will  any  man  have  the  arrogance  to  affirm,  that  Christ 
is  with  him  in  such  a  sense  ?  The  vain  and  arrogant 
pretences  of  men  to  being  ambassadors  of  Christ,  we 
hope  is  now  nearly  exploded.  Supposing  then,  that 
all  the  apostles  had  lived  beyond  the  end  of  the  age, 
or  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  yea,  let  it  be  granted 
that  they  were  all  yet  alive,  there  was  no  need  for 
Christ  being  with  them  longer  than  to  the  end  of  the 
age.     Am  t  asked  why  ?     1  answer,  before  this  period 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  ^79 

arrived  the  gosjoel  must  be  preached  to  all  the  world. 
See  Matth.  xxiv.  14.  When  it  arrived,  the  apostles 
had  all  finished  their  work  for  which  they  were  called, 
and  all  of  thern  except  John  had  also  finished  their 
course.  Allowing  that  they  had  all  continued  to  live 
to  the  present  day,  would  Christ  have  continued  to  be 
with  them,  still  teaching  them  and  enabling  to  work 
miracles  ?  I  ask  what  need  there  was  for  this  ?  AH 
the  will  of  God  was  revealed,  and  his  word  attested  by 
miracles  before  the  end  of  the  age.  Unless  God  had 
some  further  revelation  to  make  by  them,  they  could 
but  repeat  what  before  was  preached  and  committed 
to  writing,  and  fully  attested  by  miracles.  Vv^ ere  they 
now  alive,  would  they  not  like  us  believe  and  obey 
what  God,  previous  to  the  end  of  the  age,  enabled  them 
to  communicate  to  the  world  ?  This  I  am  persuaded 
few  will  question.  It  is  easily  seen  then,  that  the 
phrase  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  is  in  agreement  with 
the  usage  of  it  in  all  the  other  texts,  and  that  Christ's  pro- 
raise  to  be  with  his  apostles  at  this  period,  was  as  long 
as  his  promise  was  needed,  or  indeed  could  be  enjoyed 
by  them  in  this  mortal  state. 

I  may  just  notice  that  I  have  no  occasion  to  discuss 
the  disputed  question,  that  miracles  were  continued  in 
the  church  for  the  first  three  hundred  years.  Granting 
that  they  were  continued,  let  it  be  noticed,  that  none 
but  the  apostles  were  our  Lord's  commissioned  and  ac- 
credited ambassadors  to  the  world.  With  them,  and 
them  only,  we  have  to  do  as  instructors.  If  he  was 
with  any  others  working  miracles  beyond  the  end  of 
the  Jewish  age,  it  does  not  concern  us,  nor  does  it  affect 
the  question  we  are  at  present  considering. 

It  is  very  plain  that  aion^  here  rendered  world,  was 
not  used  to  express  endless  duration.  To  sup})0se  this, 
would  make  our  Lord  promise  to  be  with  his  apostles 


280  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

to  the  end  of  everlasting  or  eternity.  This  would  give 
rise  to  many  questions.  What  time  does  eternity  end  ? 
If  it  ends,  pray  when  did  it  begin  ?  And  were  the 
apostles  to  live  to  the  end  of  eternity  ?  Besides,  if 
eternity  ends,  how  is  endless  punishment  to  be  estab- 
lished ? 

Heb.  ix.  26.  "  For  then  must  he  often  have  suffered 
since  the  foundation  of  the  world;  but  now  once  in  the 
end  of  the  world  halh  he  appeared,  to  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  himself"  The  word  world  occurs 
twice  in  this  verse,  but  in  the  first  it  is  the  rendering 
of  the  word  7t05??i05,  and  in  the  second  that  o[  aionon. 
Most  readers  suppose  the  first  has  a  reference  to  the 
beginning  of  this  material  world,  and  the  second  to  the 
end  of  it.  The  first  is  true,  but  nothing  could  be  fur- 
ther from  the  truth  than  the  second.  Was  it  in  the 
end  of  this  material  world  Christ  appeared  to  put  away 
sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself?  It  was  not  in  the  end 
of  the  Icosmos  or  world  mentioned  in  the  first  part  of 
the  verse,  but  in  tlie  end  of  the  ages.  Hence  Mack- 
night  renders  it  thus  :  "  but  now  once,  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  ages,  he  hath  been  manifested  to  abolish 
sin-ofFering  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  All  must  see 
how  absurd  it  would  be  to  say  here,  that  at  the  end  of 
the  everlastings  or  eternities,  Christ  appeared  to  abolish 
sin-ofFering.  It  is  agreeable  to  the  fact,  that  at  the 
end  of  the  ages  or  Jewish  dispensation  he  did  appear 
and  accomplish  this. 

1  Cor.  X.  11.  "  Now  all  these  things  happened  unto 
them  for  ensamples  :  and  they  are  written  for  our  ad- 
monition, upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come." 
Though  the  Greek  expression  here  is  somewhat  differ- 
ent from  that  used  in  the  preceding  passages,  without 
a  doubt  the  apostle  referred  to  the  same  period.  Mack- 
night  renders  it  "  upon  whom  the  ends  ol  the  ages  are 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  281 

come."  In  his  note  he  says,  "  this  may  mean  the  end 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  whose  duration  ^^as  mea- 
sured by  ages  or  jubilees  ;  see  Rom.  xvi.  25,  note  3, 
or,  it  may  signify  the  last  dispensation  of  religion.  For 
there  was  the  Patriarchal  age,  or  dispensation,  the  Mo- 
saic age,  and  the  Gospel  age."  See  Whitby's  note  on 
this  text,  who  renders  this  phrase  "  the  end  of  the 
ages." 

In  concluding  our  remarks  on  all  these  texts  it  ought 
to  be  noticed,  that  even  admitting  endless  misery  true, 
some  of  them  have  been  perverted  in  attempting  to 
prove  it.  How  often  has  the  furnace  of  fire  afforded  a 
theme  of  declamation  to  preachers,  and  cause  of  pain 
and  distress  to  those  who  believed  them.  But  is  it 
saying  too  much,  that  they  were  only  beating  the  air, 
and  perverting  Scripture  to  create  fears  where  there 
really  were  none.  My  labor  is  not  lost  if  have  res- 
cued such  passages  of  God's  word  from  such  a  perver- 
sion. In  my  explanation  of  this  phrase,  I  have  shown 
its  usage  to  be  uniform  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  precision  and  consistency  of  the  sacred 
writers  in  its  use  are  manifest.  Every  candid  mind 
will  allow,  that  all  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  end 
of  the  world  or  age,  correspond  to  the  preceding  which 
made  mention  of  the  beginning  of  the  world  or  age. — 
In  both  classes  of  texts,  we  have  seen  that  critics  and 
commentators  are  agreed,  both  orthodox  and  heterodox, 
that  aion,  world,  does  not  signify  this  material  world, 
but  age,  state,  or  dispensation. 

1  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  two  other  classes  of 
texts  in  which  aion  occurs,  corresponding  to  each  other 
in  the  New  Testament.  Those  which  speak  of  "  this 
world  or  age,"  and  "  the  world  or  age  to  come."  Let 
us  first  bring  forward  all  those  which  speak  of  this 
world,     Aion  and  Jcosmos   both   rendered  ivorld,  are 


282 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 


very  different  in  signification,  and  we  do  not  recollect 
an  instance,  where  these  words  are  used  as  synony- 
mous. Tn  the  texts  now  to  be  introduced,  the  word 
for  world  is  not  Jcosmos  but  aio?i.  The  phrases  for 
"this  world"  are  ton  aionos  touto,  to  aioni  touto,  and 
en  to  nun  aioni,  and  occur  in  the  following  places.  2 
Cor.  \v.  4,  "  In  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath 
blinded  the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not."  On  this 
text  Macknight  says  "  some  have  it  age.^^  In  Eph. 
vi.  12,  "for  we  wrestle  against  the  rulers  of  the  dark- 
ness of  this  world."  Wakefield  here  renders  aion  age. 
But  again  it  is  said,  Gal.  i.  4,  ''  Who  gave  himself  for 
our  sins,  that  he  might  deliver  us  from  this  present  evil 
world."  Here  again  Wakefield  has  it  age.  On  this 
text  Macknight  thus  \vrites  :  ''  Evil  age,  aionos  pone- 
ros.  In  Scripture,  the  age  or  world,  is  often  put  for 
the  men  of  the  world,  and  for  their  evil  principles  and 
practices.  Thus  Rom.  xii.  2,  "  be  not  conformed, 
aioni  touto,  to  this  age."  And  in  Luke  xvi.  8,  it  is 
said  "  for  the  children  of  this  world  are  in  their  gene- 
ration wiser  than  the  children  of  light."  In  2  Tim. 
IV.  10,  it  is  said,  "  Demas  hath  forsaken  me,  having 
loved  this  pi-esent  world."  It  surely  cannot  be  meant, 
that  he  loved  this  present  everlasting  or  forever  :  nor, 
that  the  children  of  this  forever,  were  wiser  than  the 
children  of  light.  In  Rom.  xii.  2,  it  is  said — "and  be 
not  conformed  to  thisworld.^'  In  1  Cor.  iii.  18,  "If 
any  man  among  you  seemeth  to  be  wise  in  this  world," 
I  may  just  notice,  that  aion  is  here  rendered  age,  both 
by  Wakefield  and  Macknight.  Again,  1  Tim.  vi.  17, 
it  is  said,  •'  charge  them  that  are  rich  in  this  world."— 
And  Tit.  ii.  12,  "  Teaching  that  we  should  live  sober- 
ly, righteously,  and  godly  in  tliis  present  world."  In 
the  two  last  texts  the  Greek  is,  en  to  nun  aioni,  and 
ought  to  have  been  rendered  in  both  the  same  way.—' 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  283 

It  is  obvious,  aiori  could  not  have  been  rendered  ever- 
lasting or  forever  in  any  of  these  texts,  without  making 
the  inspired  writers  speak  nonsense.     Nor  can  we  per- 
ceive, wh}^  the  above  critics  rendered    aion  age,  in  1 
Cor.  iii,  18,  and  not  so   in  all  the  other  places.     But 
to  proceed :  in  Matth.  xiii,  22,  it  is  said,  "  and  the 
cares  of  this  world  choke  the  word."     See  the   same, 
Mark  iv.  19.     And  1  Cor.  i.  20,  it  is  said,  '<  Where  is 
the  wise  ?     Where  is  the  scribe  ?     Where  is  the  dis- 
puter  of  this  world  ?     Hath  not  God  made  foolish  the 
wisdom  of  this  world  ?"     I  may  just  notice  here  that 
the  word  for  world  in  the  last  part  of  this  verse  and  in 
verse  21,  is  not  aio7i,  but  kosmos  in  the  original.     A 
marked  distinction  is  made  between  them  in  the  Greek, 
though  this  is  concealed,  by  both  being  rendered  world 
in  our  version.     In  1  Cor.  ii.  6 — 8,  it  is  said,  "  how- 
beit  we  speak  wisdom   among  them  that  are  perfect ; 
yet  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  nor  of  the  princes  of 
this  world,  that  come  to  naught :   but  we  speak  the 
wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,  even  the  hidden  wisdom, 
which  God  ordained  before  the  world  unto  our  glory ; 
which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world  know  :  for  had 
they  known  it  they  would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord 
of  glory."     The  word  aion  here  is  rendered  by  Wake- 
field age,  and  Macknight's  note  on  it  shows  us  what  is 
meant  by  the  phrase  rendered  this  world  in  all  the 
above  passages.     He  says,   "  Locke  observes  that  in 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  aion  outes,  this 
world,  commonly  signifies  the  state  of  mankind  before 
the  publication  of  the  Gospel,  as  contradistinguished  to 
the  evangelical  state  or  constitution,  which  is  common- 
ly called,  aion  mellon.  the  world  to  come."     The  fol- 
lowing things  are  worthy  of  notice  in  this  quotation. 
1st.  It  is  allowed  that  the  phrase  this  world,  does  not 
mean  ibis  material  woddjbut  signifies  the  state  of  man- 


284  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II, 

kind  before  the  publication  of  the  GosjDel.  And  Qd. 
That  this  state  is  contradistinguished  from  another 
called  the  evangelical  state  or  constitution,  and  called 
aionmello)i,  the  world  to  come.  If  this  be  correct,  it 
essentially  alters  the  sense  of  all  the  passages  where 
these  expressions  occur.  Am  I  asked,  How  it  does 
this  ?  I  answer ;  that  in  the  passages  where  the  ex- 
pression this  world  occurs,  people  understand  it  to 
mean  this  material  world,  and  by  the  expression  ?forZc? 
to  come  is  universally  understood  the  future  state  of 
endless  existence.  The  ahove  quotation  applies  to  all 
the  texts  where  the  phrases  this  world  and  the  world 
to  come  occur.  Such  are  all  the  texts  where  the  phrase 
this  world  occurs  by  itself.  It  is  found  in  some  others, 
and  is  joined  with  the  phrase  world  to  come.  Before 
introducinjg:  these  I  would  notice  the  followino-  thino;s 
from  the  texts  already  hrought  forward. 

1st.  Supposing  that  aion  in  the  above  texts  had 
been  rendered  everlasting,  forever,  or  by  any  word 
conveying  the  idea  of  endless  duration,  what  would 
have  followed  ?  We  should  then  have  read  of  this 
forever,  this  present  forever,  and  of  this  present  evil 
forever.  This  would  naturally  lead  to  the  inquiry, 
how  many  forevers  are  there  ?  And  how  many  of  them 
are  evil  ?  We  should  also  be  exhorted  not  to  be  con- 
formed to  this  forever,  and  to  become  fools  in  this  for- 
ever, and  to  live  soberly,  righteously  and  godly  in  this 
forever,  and  the  rich  that  they  should  not  be  high 
minded  in  this  forever,  W"e  should  also  be  told,  that 
the  cares  of  this  forever  choke  the  word  ;  and  the 
question  would  be  asked — where  is  the  disputer  of  this 
forever?  Besides,  the  apostle  would  be  made  to  say, 
that  he  spoke  of  the  wisdom  and  princes  of  this  for- 
ever, even  the  wisdom  which  God  ordained  before  the 
forever,  and  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  forever 


AN    INQUIRY PART   II. 


2gS 


knew.  We  should  also  read  of  the  God  of  this  for- 
ever, and  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  forever,  and 
Christ  gave  himself  that  he  might  deliver  us  from  this 
present  evil  forever. 

2d,  The  word  world,  by  which  aion  is  rendered  in 
the  above  texts  conceals  all  these  glaring  improprie- 
ties, but  it  is  obvious  enough,  that  even  world  is  not  a 
very  correct  rendering.  Who  does  not  perceive  this 
in  the  passages  where  it  is  said  "  this  present  world," 
and  "  this  present  evil  world  ?"  The  questions  here 
naturally  enough  occur — how  many  worlds  are  there, 
how  many  of  them  are  evil,  and  is  not  this  world  al- 
ways present  ?  Why  then  speak  of  it  not  only  as  evil 
but  as  present  ?  And,  according  to  the  sense  com- 
monly affixed  to  the  word  world,  how  could  the  apos- 
tle with  truth  say,  that  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world 
had  known  Christ  ?  Surely  some  princes  of  this  world 
knew  him,  for  Abraham  was  a  mighty  prince,  and  re- 
joiced to  see  his  day  afar  off  and  was  glad. 

3d.  It  is  easily  seen  that  if  aion  is  rendered  age  in 
all  the  abov^e  texts,  not  only  are  such  improprieties 
avoided,  but  a  beauty  and  force  is  added  to  some  of 
them,  which  is  concealed  by  our  present  translation. 
Convinced  of  this,  some  of  the  most  eminent  orthodox 
critics  and  comnientators,  have  rendered  aioji  age,  and 
the  translators  of  our  common  version  have  done  the 
same  in  several  passages.  Why  it  was  not  done  in 
many  more,  deserves  the  reader's  consideration.  We 
believe  it  is  now  a  generally  conceded  point,  that  age, 
in  a  great  many  instances  at  least,  is  a  better  render- 
ing than  the  word  world.  I  may  add,  if  any  one  con- 
tends for  aion  to  mean  endless  duration  it  may  also  be 
contended  that  there  is  more  than  one  eternity,  for  this 
aion  if  it  does  mean  forever,  implies  one  or  more  of  the 
same  thing. 

19 


286  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  passages  where  the  phrase 
'^  world  to  come"  is  used.  The  first  is  Heb.  vi.  5, 
"  And  have  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the 
powers  of  the  world  to  come."  The  Greek  for  "  world 
to  come"  is  mellontos  aionos.  Let  us  then  hear,  what 
good  orthodox  writers  say  is  the  sense  of  this  expres- 
sion ?  Whitby,  on  this  text,  says,  "  The  world  to  come 
doth,  in  the  language  of  the  prophets,  and  Jewish  doc- 
tors, signify  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  who,  in  the  pro- 
phet Isaiah,  is  called  "  the  father  of  the  world  to  come." 
See  note  on  chap.  ii.  5.  The  powers,  therefore,  of 
the  world  to  come,  according  to  the  Scripture  idiom, 
must  be  the  external  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  viz, 
the  gifts  of  faith,  of  healing,  of  casting  out  devils,  1  Cor. 
xii.  8,  9,  '  the  working  of  miracles,'  or  the  o[)erations 
of  powers."  Peirce  says,  "  The  world  or  age  to  come 
is  a  Hebrew  phrase  and  signifies  the  times  of  the  Mes- 
siah, oulm  cha'^  Macknight  gives  us  the  same  expla- 
nation as  Whitby  ;  and  Dr.  Owen,  whose  praise  is  in 
all  orthodox  churches,  explains  this  phrase  in  the  same 
manner.  See  also  the  new  Theological  Repository, 
vol.  i.  pp.  51 — 53,  for  the  same  explanation,  given  at 
considerable  length,  all  of  which  my  limits  forbid  quo- 
ting. We  have  introduced,  on  the  phrase  ^'  world  to 
come,"  all  these  testimonies  for  several  reasons.  These 
authors  are  as  one  man  agreed  about  the  meaning  of 
this  expression.  They  are  competent  to  judge  in  the 
case,  and  not  one  of  them  was  ever  suspected  of  unbe- 
lief in  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery.  What  then  is 
their  united  decision  ?  They  establish  beyond  all  con- 
tradiction, that  the  phrase  '*  world  to  come,"  does  not 
mean  the  future  eternal  state  of  existence  after  death, 
but  the  age  of  the  Messiah. 

Heb.  ii.  5.  "  For  unto  the  angels  hath  he  not  put 
m  subjection  the  world  to  come  whereof  we  speak," 


AN   INQUIRY PART    II.  287 

The  Greek  phrase,  here  rendered  the  "  worid  to  come," 
is  oikoumene  ton  melloiisan,  which  evidently  means  the 
same  as  in  the  last  text.  Parkhurst,  on  the  word 
oikoumene,  says,  "The  world  to  come,  Heb.  ii.  5, 
seems  to  denote  the  state  of  the  world  under  theMeS' 
siah,  or  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  which  began  at 
his  first  advent,  and  shall  be  completed  at  his  second 
o^lorious  oomino^.  The  Jews  in  like  manner  call  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  eba  ^2^/e?w,  the  world  to  come, 
probably  from  the  prophesy  of  Isai.  Ixv.  17,  where  it 
is  represented  by  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth.  It  is 
observable  that  Paul  uses  this  phrase  only  in  this  pas^ 
sage  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  or  converted  Jews, 
as  being,  I  suppose,  a  manner  of  expression  peculiar  to 
thero,  but  not  so  intelligible  to  the  Gentile  converts." 
See  Whitby  and  Doddridge  on  the  place,  and  com  p. 
Heb.  vi.  5."  See  also  Peirce  on  this  text,  and  on 
Heb.  i.  14.  All  these,  and  otlier  writers  which  might 
be  named,  give  the  same  explanation  of  the  phrase, 
world  to  come,  which  I  forbear  quoting.  But  in  the 
following  texts  the  phrase,  'Mhis  world,"  and  ^^the 
world  to  come,"  are  mentioned  together. 

Eph.  i.  21.  "Far  above  all  principality,  and  pow- 
er, and  might,  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is 
earned,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  to  come." 
The  Greek  here  is,  ou  mo?ion  en  to  aioni  touto  alia 
Jcai  en  to  mellonti,  which  Wakefield  renders^  "not 
only  in  this,  but  also  in  the  future  age." 

Matth.  xii.  31,  32.  "  Wherefore  1  say  unto  you,  all 
manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto 
men :  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not 
be  be  forgiven  unto  men.  And  whosoever  speaketh 
a  word  against  the  son  of  man  it  shall  be  forgiven  him, 
but  whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it 
shall  not  be  forgiven  him;  neither  m  this  world,  neub§r 


288  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

in  the  world  to  come."  See  the  parallel  texts,  I\Iark 
iii.  29 — 30,  and  Luke  xii.  10,  which  I  need  not  quote. 
The  common  doctrine  from  these  passages  is — that 
neither  before  nor  after  death  can  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  be  forgiven.  As  this  doctrine  has  driven 
some  to  madness,  and  others  to  suicide,  common  hu- 
manity would  say,  "  examine  if  it  be  true."  Tliose 
who  contend  for  it,  overlook  that  it  is  implied  that 
some  sins  may  be  forgiven  in  the  world  to  come,  if 
their  view  of  this  phrase  be  correct.  But  do  they  al- 
low that  any  sins  are  to  be  forgiven  after  death  ?  Ta- 
king into  view  all  the  above  passages,  let  us  con- 
sider, 

1st.  Wherein  the  great  guilt  of  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  consisted.  From  Mark  iii.  '28 — 30,  and 
other  places,  it  appears  that  the  guilt  of  this  sin  con- 
sisted in  seeing  miracles  wrought  and  imputing  them 
to  the  power  of  an  unclean  spirit.  It  was  resisting  the 
highest  degree  of  evidence  which  could  be  given  of  the 
mission  of  our  Lord.  But  on  this  point  it  is  unneces- 
sary for  us  to  dwell.     Therefore,  let  us  consider, 

2d.  When  or  where  it  could  not  be  forgiven.  It  is 
said  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  in  "  this  world.''  This 
means,  as  we  have  seen  from  orthodox  wiiters,  it 
should  not  be  forgiven  in  the  Jewish  age,  which  was 
then  nearly  ended.  Nor  could  it  be  forgiven  in  the 
world  or  age  to  come,  which  we  have  seen  from  the 
same  authors,  means  the  age  of  the  INIessiah,  which  was 
to  succeed  the  Jewish  age  or  dispensation.  Whitby 
renders  the  words,  "  neither  in  this  age,  nor  the  age  to 
come."  It  seems  then  a  very  obvious  case,  that  when 
it  is  said  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  not  be 
forgiven  in  this  world  nor  in  the  world  to  come,  there 
is  no  reference  to  a  state  after  death.  It  simply  means, 
it  should  not  be  forgiven  while  the  Jewish  aire  or  dis- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  289 

pensatlon  continued,  nor  under  the  age  of  the  Messiah, 
which  was  then  about  to  commence.  Or,  in  other 
words,  during  the  ministry  of  our  Lord  or  his  apostles, 
who  both  wrought  miracles,  which  were  necessary  to 
be  seen  wrought  and  blasphemed  against,  in  order  to 
any  person's  committing  this  sin. 

Well,  its  being  said,  "it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come,"  is 
strong,  explicit  language,  importing  the  non-forgiveness 
of  this  sin  ?  It  is,  nor  do  we  wish  to  lessen  its  force, 
but  shall  attempt  to  meet  it  fairly  and  fully.  But  let 
us  first  hear  Macknight.  He  says — "or  we  may  trans- 
late the  clause  differently,  it  shall  not  he  forgiven  him 
neither  in  this  age,  neither  in  the  age  to  come,  import- 
ing that  no  expiation  was  provided  for  the  blasphemer 
of  the  spirit,  either  under  the  Jewish  or  Christian  dis- 
pensations." What  then  was  the  unpardonable  nature 
of  the  sin  of  blasphemy  during  the  period  called  "this 
world,"  which  we  have  seen  means  the  Jewish  age  or 
dispensation  ?  It  is  well  known,  that  to  the  blasphe- 
mer under  the  law,  no  pardon  was  granted  ;  no  sacri- 
fice could  expiate  his  crime  ;  he  must  suffer  death. — 
Permit  me  now  to  ask,  was  the  punishment  of  such 
persons  unpardonable  in  any  other  sense  than  that  they 
suffered  temporal  death  ?  Even  the  blasphemer  of  the 
God  of  Israel,  his  blasphemy  is  not  mentioned  as  un- 
pardonable, so  as  to  affect  his  future  endless  happiness. 
?^o  one  surely  will  contend,  that  to  blaspheme  against 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  greater  crime ;  for  allowing  the 
Spirit  to  be  the  third  person  in  the  Godhead,  he  is  not 
greater  than  the  God  of  Israel.  How  then  do  we  un- 
derstand this  blasphemy  to  be  a  sin,  which,  when  com- 
mitted, the  person's  case  is  past  all  remedy  ?  But 
other  sins  besides  blasphemy  were  unpardonable  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation.     The  sin  of  Moses  and  Aa- 


290  AN    INQUIRY— -PART    ll. 

ron  at  Meribah  was  so,  and  was  punished  with  deatE^ 
in  the  wilderness.  The  sin  of  Eli's  house  could  not 
be  purged  with  sacrifice  nor  burnt  offering  forever. — 
Murder  was  also  unpardonable.  They  were  to  take 
the  murderer  from  God's  altar  and  put  him  to  death. 
As  "  the  world  to  come/'  then  refers  to  the  age  of  the 
Messiah,  this  sin  is  to  be  unpardonable,  and  unpardon- 
able in  the  same  sense  as  it  was  durins^  the  Jewish  a.^Q 
called  "  this  world."  Its  unpardonable  nature  we  think 
must  be  understood  in  the  same  sense,  for  no  distinc- 
tion is  made  by  our  Lord  in  the  two  cases.  If  the 
sense  In  which  it  was  unpardonable  during  the  Jewish 
age,  was,  that  the  person  must  suffer  temporal  death  for 
it,  the  same  must  be  its  sense  under  the  age  of  the  Mes- 
siah. It  is  generally  admitted,  that  temporal  death 
was  the  punishment  of  crimes  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, and  that  temporal  death  was  inflicted  for  crimes 
under  the  new,  no  one  will  dispute  ;  for  Annanias  and 
his  wifej  persons  in  the  church  at  Corinth,  are  noted 
examples;  and  John  speaks  of  a  sin  unto  death,  for 
which  even  Christians  were  not  to  prav^  1  John  v, 
16,  17. 

Stating  then  this  sin  at  its  utmost  extent,  persons 
were  to  suffer  death  for  it,  as  was  inflicted  on  the  blas- 
phemer of  the  God  of  Israel.  What^  some  may  say, 
do  men  suffer  death  for  this  sin  in  our  day  ?  I  answer 
no,  and  for  a  very  good  reason,  because  it  is  impossible 
In  the  nature  of  the  case  to*  commit  it  in  the  present 
day.  Is  it  asked  why  ?  I  answer^  because  miracles 
must  be  seen  performed  by  the  person,  and  he  must  re- 
sist their  evidence,  and  ascribe  their  performance  to  an 
unclean  spirit,  before  he  can  commit  this  sin.  It  could 
only  be  committed  by  persons  under  the  ministry  of 
our  Lord  and  his  disciples,  who  wrought  miracles.  Did 
men  now  see  these  miracles,  as  the  persons  did  whotn 


AN    INQUIRY PART    It,  '291 

our  Lord  addressed,  it  could  be  committed,  but  unless 
the  age  of  miracles  return,  it  is  impossible.  The  mira* 
cles  wrought  before  the  Jews,  was  the  highest  degree 
of  evidence  wliich  could  be  given  them  that  he  was 
the  true  Messiah.  Resisting  and  blaspheming  them, 
rendered  their  case  hopeless,  for  no  further  evidence 
could  be  given  to  convince  them.  But  it  may  be  said 
— Did  the  unbelieving  Jews  suffer  temporal  death  for 
this  crime  ?  They  could  not  be  put  to  death  for  it  by 
the  Mosaic  law,  for  they  did  not  believe  they  had  in 
this  case  blasphemed.  Besides,  the  execution  of  this 
law  was  in  their  own  hands.  But  death  was  inflicted 
on  that  evil  generation  of  Jews,  for  upon  them  came  all 
the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth.  Not  believ- 
ing in  Jesus,  they  died  in,  or  rather  by  their  sins,  for  the 
wrath  of  God  came  on  them  to  the  uttermost. 

If  the  views  which  have  been  stated  of  the  sin  of 
blasphemy,  and  its  punishment,  be  correct,  it  fully  ac- 
counts for  one  remarkable  fact,  which  is  not  easily  ac- 
counted for  on  the  common  views  entertained  of  it. — 
How  is  it  accounted  for,  that  our  Lord  nor  his  apostles 
ever  made  any  exception  of  such  persons,  in  preaching 
forgiveness  of  sins  either  to  Jews  or  Gentiles?  Our 
Lord  commanded  his  apostles  to  begin  at  Jerusalem, 
but  gives  no  directions  to  them  to  except  a  single  in- 
dividual whom  they  might  address.  John  prohibits 
Christians  from  praying  for  one  of  their  brethren,  who 
had  sinned  a  sin  unto  death,  but  not  a  hint  is  dropped, 
prohibiting  forgiveness  of  sins  to  be  preached  to  any 
who  had  blasphemed  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  my 
views  of  this  sin,  this  is  all  as  it  ought  to  be,  and  as 
might  be  expected.  But  can  it  ever  be  reconciled 
with  the  common  opinion,  that  those  who  sinned  this 
sin  placed  themselves  without  the  boundaries  of  God's 
mercy  ?     Either  they  believed  that  none  had  commit- 


292  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

ted  it,  or  they  believed  that  it  did  not  except  the  per- 
sons, any  more  than  others,  from  having  repentance 
and  forgiveness  of  sins  preached  unto  them.  Had  they 
beHeved  such  persons  were  exceptions  from  the  mercy 
of  God,  would  they  not  have  said,  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  utterly  unpardonable  ?  AH  you  who 
have  committed  it,  your  situation  is  past  remedy.  We 
can  neither  pray  for  you,  nor  preach  to  you  forgive- 
ness." But  we  search  in  vain  for  any  thing  like  this 
in  all  the  inspired  writings.  The  only  thing  like  it  is 
John's  prohibition  to  Christians  to  pray  for  a  brother 
who  had  sinned  a  sin  unto  death.  But  no  one  under- 
stands this  as  affecting  the  eternal  condition  of  the  in- 
dividual, but  the  punishment  of  temporal  death. 

But  it  may  be  said — "  Plausible  as  all  this  appears, 
it  ought  to  be  recollected,  that  it  is  not  only  said  such 
persons  '  hath  never  forgiveness,'  but  it  is  also  added, 
that  they  are  in  danger  oi eternal  damnatio7i,^^  I  have 
not  forgotten  this,  and  shall  now  give  it  all  due  atten- 
tion. The  Greek  phrase  for  "  eternal  damnation"  is 
aioniou  Jcriseos,  I  do  not  stop  to  remark,  but  simply 
notice,  that  the  persons  are  only  said  to  be  in  danger 
of  this  ;  whereas  people  in  our  day,  speak  with  posi- 
tive certainty,  both  as  to  this  and  Judas'  being  in  hell. 
The  word  here  rendered  damnation,  simply  means 
punishment.  It  is  so  rendered  in  other  passages.  See 
Dr.  Campbell's  note  on  Mark  xii.  40,  where  he  shows 
this.  The  words  damned  and  damnation,  lead  peo- 
ple's minds  into  a  future  state  for  this  punishment. — 
This  is  a  very  false  idea,  and  ought  to  be  corrected ; 
for  the  word  damnation  is  used  in  the  common  version 
where  they  will  allow  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  a  future 
state.  See  Rom.  xiii.  2,  and  other  places.  We  are 
aware  it  will  be  said,  the  word  eternal  joined  here  with 
damnation,  shows   that  the  punishment  is  in  a  future 


AN    INQUIRY PAE.T    II.  293 

State,  and  of  endless  duration.  It  is  then  allowed  that 
the  whole  depends  upon  the  word  eternal.  Indeed,  I 
presume  it  is  this  word  joined  with  damnation  which 
leads  most  people  to  conclude  that  it  is  of  endless  du- 
ration. Would  they  ever  have  believed  this  doctrine 
had  this  not  been  the  case  ?     Let  it  be  noticed, 

1st.  That  our  Lord,  in  the  above  passages,  was  ad- 
dressing Jews.  They  were  the  persons  who  commit- 
ted this  unpardonable  sin,  if  ever  it  was  committed. — 
They  had  the  occasion  presented  to  them  for  its  com- 
mission, as  they  chiefly  enjoyed  the  ministry  and  mira- 
cles both  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Not  a  hint  is 
dropped  that  any  of  the  Gentiles  ever  committed  this 
sin. 

2d.  Being  Jews,  they  were  familiar  with  the  use  of 
olim  in  the  Old,  and  aion  in  the  New  Testament.  And 
it  has  been  seen,  that  olim  in  their  Scriptures,  is  applied 
very  often  to  things  which  were  to  end,  and  which 
have  already  ended.  The  person  who  would  therefore 
understand  this  text  and  oihers  in  the  New  Testament, 
must  consider  how  this  lanojuao-e  was  understood  amono; 
the  Jews,  and  not  how  Christians  now  understand 
them. 

3d.  The  Jews  could  not  help  seeing,  that  in  their 
Scriptures,  olim,  rendered  everlasting,  was  applied  to 
a  temporal  punishment  threatened  them  as  a  nation. 
This  we  have  show^n,  and  this  we  shall  show  hereafter 
on  Matth.  chap.  xxv.  and  2  The<^s.  i.  5 — 10.  Now 
permit  me  to  ask — Did  any  Jew,  or  did  any  one  else 
ever  conclude  that  the  word  olim  described  a  never- 
ending  punishment  either  in  this  or  a  future  world? — 
As  this  will  not  be  affirmed,  permit  me  to  ask,  By 
what  fair  rule  of  interpretation  do  we  then  interpret 
eternal  damnation  or  punishment  in  this  passage  to 
mean  endless  punishment  in  a  future  state  ?     As  our 


294  AN    INQUIRY PART    11. 

Lord  was  speaking  to  Jews,  is  it  not  more  Scriptural 
and  natural  to  understand  him  as  using  tliis  expression 
in  agreement  with  the  language  of  their  sacred  books, 
than  in  the  sense  Christians  interpret  it?  In  what 
other  sense  could  our  Lord  use  it,  or  in  what  other 
sense  could  Jews  understand  such  language,  but  in 
the  way  it  had  been  used  by  the  preceding  Scrip- 
ture writers  ?  But  this  will  appear  conclusive  by 
considering, 

4th.  That  in  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  ollm 
ever  used  and  applied  to  a  punishmejit  after  death. — 
This  we  think  a  fact,  which  will  not  easily  be  shown 
to  be  false.  The  reader  has  had  all  the  texts  where 
the  word  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  laid  before  him, 
Bnd  those  in  which  it  could  be  supposed  to  have  such 
a  sense  have  been  particularly  consideied.  Let  him, 
then,  judge  if  our  Lord  used,  and  the  Jews  could  un 
derstand  the  expression,  eternal  damnation,  in  the 
sense  we  moderns  put  upon  it.  The  proof,  at  any 
rate,  lies  with  those  who  believe  so,  for  no  man  can 
prove  a  negative.  But  w^e  have  in  this  case  some 
proof,  that  our  Lord  neither  meant,  nor  was  he  so  un- 
derstood by  the  Jews  who  heard  him.  First,  no  Jew 
believed  that  he  was  to  suffer  endless  punishment 
either  here  or  hereafter.  See  Whitby  on  Romans  ii. 
Again,  no  doctrine  our  Lord  advanced,  could  have 
been  more  displeasing  to  the  Jews.  They  to  suffer 
endless  punishment  who  were  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham ?  No;  this  was  far  from  their  thoughts.  But 
again,  though  our  Lord  and  the  Jews  had  many  rea- 
sonings  and  contentions  arising  from  his  doctrines,  do 
we  ever  find  that  any  of  them  arose  from  his  threaten- 
ing them  with  endless  punishment  in  a  future  state  ? — 
No,  nothing  like  this  appears.  Either,  then,  our  I.jord 
did  not  theaten  them  with  this,  or  if  he  did,  they  did 


AN     INQUIRY— PART    11.  ^95 

not  understand  liim  ;  or,  if  they  did  understand  him^ 
they  acted  very  differently  about  from  what  they  did 
on  all  other  occasions.  In  this  case,  they  subnnitted 
very  tamely  to  a  threatening,  never  before  mentioned 
in  their  Sciiptures,  and  directly  in  face  of  all  their  pre- 
judices as  a  nation. 

olh.  We  see  nothing  in  the  expression  "  eternal 
damnation,"  indicating  endless  punishment,  any  more 
than  in  others  which  we  think  we  have  shown  refer  to 
no  such  thing.  Is  this  expression  stronger  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine  than  "  damnation  of  hell,  the  fire  that 
shall  never  be  quenched,"  with  others,  which  we  think 
has  been  proved  in  the  Inquiry  into  the  words  Sheol, 
&LC.,  to  refer  to  temporal  punishment?  Or.  is  it 
stronger  in  favor  of  this  doctrine  than  the  expressions 
'•'  everlasting  fire,  eternal  punishment,  everlasting  de- 
struction, with  others,  which  we  shall  presently  show 
have  no  such  meaning  ?  If  these  expressions  refer  to 
the  temporal  punishment  of  the  Jews,  why  not  also 
the  expression  "eternal  damnation,"  before  us?  Jews 
who  blasphemed  against  the  Holy  Spirit  were  ad- 
dressed. The  most  convincing  proofs  had  been  of- 
fered them  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  These  they 
resisted,  and  blasphemed  the  power  by  which  they 
were  performed.  They  were  soon  to  fill  up  the  mea- 
sure of  their  iniquity,  and  could  not  escape  the  dam- 
nation of  hell.  There  remained  for  them  no  more 
sacrifice  for  their  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for, 
of  judgment  and  fiery  indignation  to  devour  them  as 
adversaries.  Their  sin  was  not  to  be  for^^iven,  that 
their  punishment  might  be  averted.  They  were  in 
danger  of  "  eternal  damnation,"  or  punishment,  even 
the  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  which  as  a  nation  they  have  suffered,  and  are 
still  suffering.     The  Greek  phrase,  '^  aionioukriseos^^' 


296  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II. 

rendered  ''  eternal  damnation,"  may  be  rendered  "  of 
the  age  of  judgment,"  or  "  of  the  judgment  of  the  age" 
both  words  being  in  the  genitive.  It  is  called  the 
damnation  of  hell,  the  fire  that  shall  never  be  quench- 
ed, the  greater  damnation,  and  is  set  forth  by  the 
severest  eastern  punishment,  ''  a  furnace  of  fire."  In 
plain  language  it  is  described  by  our  Lord,  Matthew, 
chapters  xxiv.  xxv. 

Matt.  xix.  27—29.  ''  Then  answered  Peter,  and 
said  unto  him,  behold,  we  have  forsaken  all  and  fol- 
lowed thee  :  what  shall  we  have  therefore  ?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye 
that  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration,  when  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also 
shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelves  tribes 
of  Israel.  And  every  one  that  hath  forsaken  houses, 
or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or 
children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive 
an  hundred  fold,  and  shall  inherit  everlasting  life." — 
The  parallel  texts  are,  Mark  x.  28 — 31,  and  Luke 
xviii.  28 — 30,  which  t  need  not  quote.  Mark  and 
Luke  say,  "  and  in  the  world  to  come  life  everlasting." 
Wakefield's  rendering  is,  •'  and  in  the  age  that  is 
coming  everlasting  life."  It  will  not  be  questioned, 
that  the  phrases,  ''  this  time,"  and  '' this  present  time" 
in  these  texts,  express  the  same  as  is  meant  by  the 
phrase  ''  this  world,"  or  age,  in  preceding  passages. — 
They  all  refer  to  the  Jewish  age,  which  was  to  be 
superseded  by  the  age  of  the  Messiah,  and  repeatedly 
called  the  age  or  "  world  to  come."  In  fact  no  other 
age  could  come,  for  no  other  was  promised,  or  expec- 
ted bv  the  Jews,  but  the  a^e  of  the  Messiah.  But 
the  phrase,  "  world  to  come,"  by  most  Christians  is 
interpreted  to  mean,  the  state  after  death,  and  the 
phrase  '•'  everlasting  life,"  the  happiness  to  be  enjoyed 


AN    INQUIRY PART    Tl.  297 

in  that  state.  But,  that  by  "•  the  world  to  come,"  is 
meant  the  age  of  the  Messiah,  is  conchisively  shown 
by  orthodox  writers  above,  who  declare  it  is  to  end  at 
Christ's  second  coming.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 28.  My 
reasons  for  thinking,  that  the  eternal  life  here  spoken 
of,  refers  to  the  life  enjo3^ed  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
during  the  age  of  the  IMessiah,  I  shall  as  briefly  as  pos- 
sible state  : 

1st.  This  appears  from  the  Old  Testament  usage  of 
the  phrase  "  everlasting  life,"  which  occurs  only  in 
Dan.  xii.  2,  considered  above.  It  is  set  in  contrast 
with  the  shame  and  everlasting  contempt  which  came 
on  the  Jewish  nation  at  the  end  of  the  age.  If  their 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  were  to  be  endured 
in  this  state  of  existence,  why  not  the  eternal  life  with 
which  it  is  contrasted,  be  enjoyed  also  in  the  same 
state  ?  The  c(3ntrast  would  be  incongruous  if  it  is  un- 
derstood otherwise. 

2.  From  the  context  of  the  passages  under  con- 
sideration, it  is  evident,  that  what  our  Lord  said  was 
in  answer  to  Peter's  question,  verse  27,  which  was  sug- 
gested by  the  discourse  immediately  preceding  it,  verses 
16 — 27.  According  to  Daniel's  use  of  the  words  eter- 
nal life,  what  else  could  this  man  mean,  than,  what 
good  thing  shall  I  do,  that  I  may  enjoy  the  blessings  of 
Messiah's  reign,  or  enter  into  his  kingdom  ?  That  this 
view  of  everlasting  life,  is  agreeable  to  the  passage  be- 
fore us,  is  evident,  for  it  was  to  be  enjoyed  in  '^  the 
world  to  come,"  or  in  the  age  of  the  Messiah.  The 
Jews  were  familiar  with  Daniel's  writings,  and  if  in 
this  sense  it  was  used  there,  how  could  the  Jews  in 
our  Lord's  day  uriderstand  it  in  a  different  sense  with- 
out some  explanation  ?  That  this  was  the  sense  in 
which  it  was  used,  appears  to  me  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing statements,  and   the  texts  referred  to.     In  the 


298  AN    INQ.UIRY PART   II. 

New  Testament,  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  "king- 
dom of  God,"  are  phrases  used  to  express  the  same 
thing ;  compare  Matt.  xix.  20,  with  verse  24,  as  an 
example.  This  is  very  obvious  from  comparing  the 
four  Gospels.  It  is  also  evident,  that  to  ''  have  eter- 
nal life,"  and  to  ''  enter  into  eternal  life,"  also  mean 
the  same  thing.  Compare  Matt.  xix.  16,  with  verse 
17.  But  let  it  be  particularly  observed,  that  to  "  en- 
ter into  life,"  and  "  to  have  eternal  life,"  is  the  same 
as  "to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  or  "  king- 
dom of  God."  This  appears  from  comparing  Matt. 
xix.  16,  17,  with  verses  23,  24.  Also  from  compa^ 
ring  Mark  ix.  43,  45,  with  verse  47,  where  entering 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  entering  into  life,  are 
used  as  equivalent  expressions.  If  these  statements 
are  not  correct,  we  should  think  it  a  hopeless  case,  to 
ascertain  the  sense  of  Scripture  by  comparing  one  part 
of  it  with  another.  I  may  add,  that  "  to  be  saved," 
versa  25  of  Matt,  xix.,  seems  to  be  used  as  an  equiva- 
lent expression  for  "  having  eternal  life,"  verse  16, 
"  to  enter  into  life,"  verse  17,  and  "  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  and  kingdom  of  God,"  verses  23, 
24.  Let  us  now  look  at  the  context  of  the  passage 
before  us.  "  And  behold,  one  came  and  said  to  him 
good  master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I  may 
have  eternal  life,"  verse  16.  And  compare  Mark  x, 
17.  Luke  xviii,  18;  Luke  x.  25.  Permit  me  now 
to  ask— When  this  person  asked  what  good  thing  he 
should  do  to  "have  eternal  life,"  did  he  mean  to  ask, 
what  he  should  do  to  obtain  heaven  and  its  happiness  ? 
We  must  doubt  this,  for  we  have  seen  that  what  he 
calls  eternal  life,  verse  16,  is  to  enter  into  life,  verse 
]7,  and  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  king- 
dom of  God,  verses  23,  24.  His  meaning  seems  evi' 
dently  to  be,  good  master,  what  shall  I  do  to  enter  in- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  '  299 

to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  reign  of  the  Messiah, 
whose  kingdom  or  reign  is  about  commencing.  If  this 
be  correct,  it  is  easily  perceived  how  exactly  this 
sense  of  the  phrase  agrees  with  the  only  place  in  the 
Old  Testament  where  everlasting  life  is  mentioned. — 
Daniel  told  us  that  some  should  awake  ^'  to  everlasting 
life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."-^ 
This  person  seemed  to  be  awaking  to  everlasting  life, 
but  we  see  that  his  trusting  in  his  riches,  still  kept  him 
from  entering;  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  One  seems 
to  have  been  so  much  awakened,  that  our  Lord  said 
he  was  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  obtaining 
eternal  life.     See  Mark  xii.  28—35. 

3d.  Tt  appears  from  considering  where  or  when  this 
eternal  life  was  to  be  enjoyed.  Not  a  word  is  said  in 
the  passage,  that  this  was  in  a  future  state  of  existence. 
It  was  to  be  when  the  Son  of  Man  sat  on  the  throne 
o.f  his  glory,  and  the  apostles  on  twelve  thrones,  judg» 
ing  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  But  are  the  apostles 
to  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel  in  a  future  state  of  existence  ?  Well,  when  was 
this  ?  The  following  writers  shall  inform  us,  Mac- 
knight,  on  this  passage  observes — "  According  to  the 
common  Interpretation  of  these  words,  they  relate  en- 
tirely to  the  other  life  ;  implying,  that  at  the  gene- 
ral judgment  the  apostles  shall  assist  Christ  in  passing 
sentence  upon  the  Israelites."  But  so  far  from  agree- 
ing to  this  interpretation,  he  says—"  In  the  seventh 
chapter  of  Daniel,  the  prophet,  speaking  of  the  erec- 
tion  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  says,  verse  9,  *  I  be- 
held till  the  thrones  were  set  (not  cast  down,  as  it  is 
in  our  translation)  and  the  Ancient  of  days  did  sit," 
namely,  on  one  of  the  thrones  that  were  set,  13, 
^'  And  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  Man  came  to  the 
Ancient  of  days"  while  be  sat  on  his  throne,  '^  and 


300 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 


they  brought  him  near  before  him,  and  there  was  given 
him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom."  By  the 
hingdom  that  was  given  to  the  Son  of  Man,  the  pro- 
phet meant  his  mediatorial  kingdom  ;  and  by  the  glory, 
his  being  seated  beside  the  Ancient  of  days  on  one  of 
the  thrones  mentioned  verse  9,  in  testimony  of  his  ex- 
altation to  that  kingdom.  The  throne  of  his  glory, 
therefore,  which  our  Lord  speaks  of  in  the  text,  is  the 
throne  of  his  mediatorial  kingdom,  called  the  throne  of 
his  glory,  in  allusion  to  the  representation  which  Dan- 
iel had  given  of  it.  In  this  kingdom,  the  apostles 
likewise  were  to  be  seated  on  thrones,  and  to  judge 
the  tribes  ;  that  is,  were  to  be  next  the  Messiah  in  dig- 
nity and  office  ;  his  ministers,  by  whom  he  was  to  sub- 
due and  govern  the  church."  See  the  \vhole  of  his 
note,  a  small  part  of  which  only  I  have  quoted.  See 
also  Parkhurst  on  the  word  l^rino,  v/ho  gives  the  same 
view  of  the  passage.  Dr.  Campbell  renders  the  28th 
verse  thus  :  '^  that  at  the  renovation,  when  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  be  seated  in  his  glorious  throne,  ye,  my  fol- 
lowers, sitting  also  upon  twelve  thrones,  shall  judge." 
In  his  note,  part  of  which  only  I  shall  quote,  he  says, 
"  We  are  accustomed  to  apply  the  term  regeneration 
solely  to  the  conversion  of  individuals  ;  whereas  its  re- 
lation here  is  to  the  general  state  of  things.  As  they 
were  wont  to  denominate  the  crention,  genesis,  a  re- 
markable restoration,  or  renovation,  of  the  face  of 
things,  was  very  suitably  termed  ycdiggenesia.  The 
return  of  the  Israelites  to  their  own  land,  after  the 
Babylonish  ca[)tivity,  is  so  named  by  Josephus,  the 
Jewish  historian.  What  was  said  on  verse  23,  holds 
equally  in  regard  to  the  promise  we  have  here.  The 
principal  completion  will  be  at  the  general  resurrection, 
when  there  will  be,  in  the  most  important  sense,  a  re- 
novation, or  regeneration  of  heaven  and  earth,  when 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II.  301 

all  things  shall  become  new ;  yet,  in  a  subordinate 
sense,  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  accomplished  when 
God  came  to  visit  in  judgment  that  guilty  land  ;  when 
the  old  dispensation  was  utterly  abolished,  and  suc- 
ceeded by  the  Christian  dispensation,  into  which  the 
Gentiles,  from  every  quarter,  as  well  as  Jews,  were 
called  and  admitted."  See  also  Whitby's  note  on 
Matt.  xix.  27,  28,  to  the  same  effect. 

It  is  obvious  from  these  statements  that  the  passage 
has  no  reference  to  a  future  state  of  existence,  but  to 
the  establishment  of  Jesus   in   the  throne  of  his  king- 
dom, when  the  Old  Testament  was  utterly  abolished, 
and  from  which  period  he  has  been  judging  the  world 
in  righteousness,  and  the  people  with  his  truth.     He, 
as  king,  reigns  in  righteousness,  and  the  apostles  with 
him  decree  justice,  and  shall  continue  to  do  so  until 
the  period   called   the  end,  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 28,  when 
he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God  the  father. — 
Can  the   statements  of  these  writers  be  proved  false  ? 
Besides,  the  apostles  and  others  are  not  to  enjoy  eter- 
nal life  until  the  day  of  judgment,  if  this  be  the  time 
Christ  refers  to  by  sitting  on  the  throne  of  his  glory. 
Is  it  objected — "  Were  not  the  disciples  in  the  king- 
dom of  Christ,  and  enjoying  eternal  life  in  the  sense 
which  you   have  explained  it,  at  the  time  our  Lord 
spoke?"     Yes,  but  it  was  not  until  the  Son  of  Man 
came  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  that  his  kingdom 
came  with  power.     See  Luke  xxi.  31 — 34  ;  Mark  viii. 
38,  and  ix.  \.     At  this  time  it  was  profitable  for  his 
disciples  to  enter  into  life  with   the  loss   of  all   things 
dear  to  them,  rather  than  go  into  Gehenna  or  hell,  or 
lo  suffer  all  the  miseries  which  came  on   the  Jewish 
nation.     See  Mark  ix.  43 — 50,  and  the  Inquiry  into 
the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  &:c. 

4th.  This  view  of  eternal  life,  enjoyed  in  the  world 
20 


302  AN    lNq,UIRY PART    11. 

to  come,  is  confirmed  from  the  following  context. — 
Our  Lord  having  said,  "  and  shall  inherit  everlasting 
life,"  immediately  adds,  "  but  many  that  are  first  shall 
be  last,  and  the  last  shall  be  first."  Here  the  chapter 
ends,  but  it  is  evident,  the  Saviour,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  next  chapter,  goes  on  to  illustrate  his  meaning 
by  the  parable  commonly  called  the  parable  of  the 
laborers  in  the  vineyard.  Well,  let  us  ask  the  ques- 
tion, many  that  are  first  shall  be  last  and  the  last  shall 
be  first,  about  what?  The  answer  from  the  context 
evidently  is,  about  inheriting  everlasting  life,  or  enter- 
ing into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Accordingly,  our  Lord 
says,  "  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  (or  inheriting  ever- 
lasting life  in  it,)  is  like  unto  a  man  who  is  an  house- 
holder, who  went  out  very  early  in  the  morning  to  hire 
laborers  into  his  vineyards."  This  parable  is  inter- 
preted by  Macknight  and  others,  of  the  calling  of  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  for  the  Gentiles,  who  were  the 
last  in  having  the  kingdom  of  God  preached  to  them, 
were  the  first  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  en- 
joy 


eternal  life  in   this  kingdom  ;  and  the  Jews,   to 


whom  it  was  first  preached,  shall  be  last  in  entering 
into  the  enjoyment  of  the  same  blessings.  This  must 
be  understood  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  generally,  as 
a  people. 

5th.  The  view  given  of  eternal  life,  will  be  con- 
firmed, by  attending  to  the  general  usage  of  this  phrase 
in  the  New  Testament.  This  must  be  done  in  a  very 
brief  way,  for  the  texts  are  numerous  where  it  occurs. 
The  reader  may  consult  the  texts  for  himself;  we  shall 
give  all  the  places  where  it  is  found,  and  shall  propose 
some  questions  for  his  consideration.  I  find,  then,  zoe 
rendered  life,  and  used  to  express  what  we  call  natural 
life,  I  Cor.  iii.  22  ;  James  iv.  14  ;  Acts  viii.  33  ;  Rom. 
viii.  33;  John  xii.  25  j  Acts  xvii.  25  ^  1  John  v.  IG  • 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  303 

Luke  i.  75  ;  Philip,  i,  20  ;  Acts  ii.  28  ;  1  Tim.  iv.  8  ; 
1  Cor.  XV.  19;  Rom.  vii.  10;  Heb.  vii.  3;  Acts  vii. 
19;  Luke  xvii.  33  ;  Luke  xvi.  25  ;  Rev.  xi.  11.     It 

is  also  used  to  express  the  happiness,  or  the  good  a 
man  enjoys  in  this  life,  Luke  xii.  15  ;  1  Peter  iii.  10; 
Luke  xvi.  25  ;  2  Peter  i.  3. 

But  I  find  zoCf  life,  used  to  designate  that  moral  or 
spiritual  life,  enjoyed  by  believers  in  Jesus.  Before 
believing,  they  are  spoken  of  as  alienated  from  the  life 
of  God,  Eph.  iv.  18.  In  believing,  they  pass  from 
death  to  life,  1  John  iii.  14,  15.  They  have  repen- 
tance unto  life  granted  to  them,  Acts  xi.  18,  and  ob- 
tain justification  of  life,  Rom.  v.  18.  By  the  power 
of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  they  are  made  free 
from  the  power  of  sin  and  death,  Romans  viii.  2.— 
Their  spirits  or  minds  are  alive,  because  of  righteous- 
ness, Rom.  viii.  10,  and  enjoy  life  and  peace,  verse  6. 
They  have  the  light  of  hfe,  John  viii.  12.  Walk  in 
newness  of  life,  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  hold  forth  the  word 
of  life,  Philip,  ii.  16.  The  meat  Christ  gave  them 
endured  to  eternal  hfe,  John  vi.  27,  and  the  water,  a 
vvell  springing  up  to  everlasting  life,  John  iv.  14.— 
They  are  exhorted  to  lay  hold  on  eternal  life,  1  Tim. 
vi.  12,  19,  and  seek  for  glory,  honor,  immortality, 
eternal  Hfe,  Rom.  ii.  7.  And  by  sowing  to  the  spirit 
reaped  hfe  everlasting,  Gal.  vi.  8.  They  are  exhort-- 
ed  to  look  for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  un- 
to eternal  life,  Jude  21.  Have  their  fruit  unto  holi- 
ness, and  the  end  everlasting  life.  Rom.  vi.  22.  The 
life  of  Jesus  was  made  manifest  in  them,  2  Cor.  iv„ 
10 — 12.  They  were  heirs  of  the  grace  of  life,  1  Peter 
iii.  7.  Were  saved  by  Christ's  life,  Rom.  v.  10,  and 
are  said  to  reign  in  life,  Rom.  v.  17.  The  names  of 
such  persons  are  said  to  be  in  the  book  of  life,  Philip, 
iv.  3  ',  Uey,  iii,  5  }  %nu  d  }  '^viu  8  :  2cx.  12,  15  ;  xxi. 


304  AN    INQ,U1RY PART    II. 

27,  and  xxli.  19.  Tliey  drink  of  the  water  of  life, 
John  iv.  14;  Rev.  xxi.  6,  and  xxii.  1,  17.  And  by 
overconiing  they  were  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  life,  Rev, 
ii.  7  ;  xxii.  2,  14,  and  obtain  a  crown  of  life,  James  i. 
12;  Rev.  ii.  10.  And  mortality  is  at  last  to  be 
swallowed  up  of  life,  2  Cor.  v.  4.  The  gate  which 
led  to  this  life  was  strait  and  the  way  narrow,  Matt. 
vii.  14.  Several  persons  asked  our  Lord  what  they 
should  do  to  obtain  or  inherit  eternal  life.  Matt.  xix. 
16  ;  Mark  x.  17  ;  Luke  x.  25,  and  xviii.  18.  And 
it  is  evident  from  the  context  of  all  these  passages, 
that  to  have  eternal  life,  to  enter  into  this  life,  and  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  all  referred  to  the  same 
thing.  See  also  Matt,  xviii.  8,  9,  and  xix.  17,  29; 
Mark  ix.  43,  45. 

It  appears,  that  man  never  woidd  have  known  any 
other  life,  exce|)t  natural  life,  but  for  the  grace  of  God 
through  Jesus  Christ.  Christ  hath  brought  life  and 
immortality  to  li^ht,  2  Tim.  i.  10.  With  a  view  to 
this,  God  promised  eternal  life,  I  John  ii.  25.  It  was 
promised  before  tiie  Jewish  age  began,  Tit.  i.  2.  This 
promise  of  life  was  in  or  by  Christ  Jesus,  2  Tim.  i.  1. 
This  promise  laid  a  foundation  for  the  hope  of  it,  Tit. 
i.  2,  and  iii.  7.  The  fatlier  gave  the  son  to  have  life 
in  himself,  John  v.  26.  Hence  it  is  said,  in  him  was 
life,  John  i.  4.  And  he  was  made  after  the  power  of 
an  endless  life,  Heb.  vii.  16.  Accordingly,  he  is  called 
the  life,  1  John  i.  2,  John  xiv.  6,  the  resurrection 
and  the  life,  John  xi.  25,  the  eternal  life,  1  John  v. 
20,  and  the  eteinal  life  who  was  with  the  father  and 
manifested  to  us,  1  John  i.  2,  He  is  also  termed  the 
prince  of  lile,  Acts  iii.  15,  and  the  bread  of  life,  John 
vi.  35,  48,  51,  53.  The  grace  of  God  reigns  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life  by  Jesus  Christ,  Rom. 
v.  21,  and  eternal  life  is  the  siift  of  God  ihrouirh  Jesus 


AN    INQUIRY PART    11.  305 

Christ,  Rom.  vi.  23.  This  eternal  life  is  in  or  by 
Gocfs  son,  1  John  v.  11.  He  gives  eternal  life,  John 
X.  23,  and  fives  it  to  as  many  as  the  father  hath  oiven 
him,  John  xvii.  2.  This  eternal  hfe  is  expressly  said 
to  consist  in  knowing  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  he 
hath  sent,  John  xvii.  3.  Hence  the  word  of  Christ  were 
spirit  and  life,  John  vi.  63.  He  had  the  words  of  eter- 
nal life,  verse  68.  God's  commandment  was  life  ever- 
lasting, John  xii.  50.  Compare  1  John  i.  1.  As  eter- 
nal life  consists  in  the  knowledge  of  God  and  Jesus 
Christ,  so  persons  are  said  to  enjoy  it  by  believing, 
John  iii.  15,  16;  1  Tim.  i.  16.  The}''  had  it  upon 
their  believing,  and  it  abode  in  them  by  continuing  to 
beheve,  John  iii.  36 :  v.  24  ;  vi.  40,  47,  53,  54,  and 
XX.  31  ;  1  John  v.  12,  13.  The  Jews  thought  that 
in  their  Scriptures  they  had  eternal  life,  yet  v/ould  not 
come  to  Christ,  or  believe  on  him,  that  they  might 
have  it,  John  v.  39,  40.  On  the  contraty,  the^^ 
judged  themselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life  by  re- 
jecting the  gospel,  Acts  xiii.  46.  Accordingly,  the 
apostles  turned  to  the  Gentiles,  and  as  many  of  them 
as  were  ordained  or  disposed  for  eternal  life,  believed, 
verse  48.  The  Jews  had  all  the  words  of  this  life 
preached  unto  them.  Acts  v.  20.  The  apostles  in 
preaching  were  to  some  a  savour  of  life  unto  life,  and 
to  others  of  death  unto  death,  2  Cor.  ii.  16,  In  reap- 
ing the  gospel  harvest  among  the  Jews,  they  gathered 
fruit  unto  life  eternal,  John  iv.  36.  And  whosoever 
lost  his  life  for  Christ's  sake  kept  it  unto  life  eternal, 

John  xii.  25,  for  at  the  end  of  the  a2;e  those  who  en- 

'-' 

(lured  to  the  end  were  saved.     Those  who   believed 

not   went  away  into  everlasting  punishment  and  the 

righteous  into  life  eternal.  Matt.  xxv.  46.     Compare 

John  V.  29.     And  the  receiving  of  the   Jews  again 

shall  be  as  life  from  the  dead,  Rom.  xi.  15. 

Such  is  a  very  brief  review  of  all  the  texts  where 


306  AN    lNq.UlRl PART    11. 

life,  and  everlasting  life  are  spoken  of  in  the  New 
Testament.  On  the  whole  of  them  1  would  now  pro- 
pose a  few  queries  and  remarks.  If  eternal  life  refers 
to  the  happiness  of  heaven  in  a  future  state,  how  is  it 
accounted  for,  that  eternal  death  is  never  spoken 
of  as  its  counterpart  to  the  wicked  in  a  future  state  ? 
Everlasting  punishment  is  mentioned.  Matt.  xxv.  46, 
as  the  counterpart  of  everlasting  life,  but  everlasting 
or  eternal  death  is  not  once  named  in  the  Bible.  But 
it  is  well  known  that  eternal  death  is  a  favorite  expres- 
sion with  many  preachers.  But  it  may  be  said, 
"everlasting  punishment,  everlasting  fire,  everlasting 
destruction,  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  and  are  not 
these  equivalent  to  eternal  death  ?"  We  answer  no  ; 
and  it  will  be  seen  in  the  next  Section  that  such  ex- 
pressions have  no  respect  to  punishment  beyond  this 
life.  But  again,  if  eternal  life  refers  to  the  happiness 
of  heaven  in  a  future  state,  how  happens  it  that  it  is 
so  often  spoken  about  as  a  thing  enjoyed  in  this  life, 
and  dwelling  in  persons  by  believing  in  Jesus  ?  It  is 
defined  to  consist  in  knowing  God  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  he  hath  sent.  It  could  not  only  be  enjoyed 
here,  but  people  could  enter  into  this  life,  which  is  the 
same  as  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Further, 
though  eternal  life  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  future, 
and  an  object  of  hope,  yet  I  do  not  find  it  spoken  of 
as  an  object  expected  after  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  or  once  mentioned  as  equivalent  to  the  happi- 
ness to  be  enjoyed  in  the  resurrection  state.  It  is 
rather  spoken  of  as  something  expected  after  the  end 
of  the  Jewish  age,  during  tlie  age  of  the  IMessiali,  or 
the  "world  to  come."  The  promise  of  eternal  life  in 
this  age  to  come,  was  made  to  Christ's  disciples  ;  for 
when  our  Lord  spoke,  the  old  dispensation  had  not 
then  vanished  away,  and  it  was  not  until  it   ended. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  307 

that  our  Lord's  kingdom  came  in  its  glory  and  pow- 
er. Tt  was  a  matter  of  hope  to  his  disciples,  for  then 
they  were  to  enter  into  life,  or  into  the  joy  of  their 
Lord.  But  again,  the  term  life  is  used  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  to  express  happiness  or  en- 
joymert.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  used  very  often  to 
designate  the  spiritual  or  moral  life  of  helievers. — 
Those  who  believed  were  not  condemned,  did  not 
perish,  but  were  saved.  Those  who  did  not  believe, 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  those  believers  who  did  not 
endure  to  the  end  did  perish.  The  wrath  of  God 
abode  on  them,  and  his  wrath  came  on  them  to  the 
uttermost  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  Jews, 
by  putting  the  word  of  God  from  them,  judged  them- 
selves unworthy  of  everlasting  life.  The  apostles 
turned  to  the  Gentiles,  and  thus  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  given  to  a  nation  bring- 
ing forth  the  fruits  thereof.  I  would  only  add  that 
this  eternal  life  is  expressly  said  to  be  enjoyed  in  the 
world  to  come.  This  world  or  age  to  come,  we  are 
told  by  orthodox  authors  above,  began  at  our  Lord's 
first  advent,  and  shall  be  completed  at  his  second 
coming.  How  then  is  eternal  hfe  to  be  enjoyed  if  the 
world  to  come  ends,  according  to  their  own  explanation 
of  this  expression  ? 

In  regard  to  the  word  everlasting  being  associated 
with  the  term  life  it  can  occasion  no  serious  difhculty. 
The  term  everlasting  is  also  applied  to  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  and  the  gospel  of  this  kingdom  is  called 
"  the  everlasting  gospel."  But  surely  no  one  ever 
thought  that  the  gospel  is  to  be  preached  to  the  end- 
less ages  of  eternity.  Is  it  said,  ''  How  could  the 
apostles  enjoy  everlasting  life  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
here,  seeing  a  few  years  terminates  the  existence  of 
every  man  in  the  world  ?"     I  answer  this  by  asking, 


308  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

how  could  Samuel  abide  before  the  Lord  forever  ?  Or 
how  could  the  slave  serve  his  master  forever?  In 
short,  how  could  the  priesthood  be  enjoyed  by  Aaron 
and  his  sons  forever  ?  Or  the  land  of  Canaan  be  an 
inheritance  to  Israel  forever  ?  But  these  remarks  I 
have  merely  suggested  for  consideration.  Allowing 
they  have  no  weight,  the  grand  subject  of  our  inves- 
tigation stands  unaffected  ;  for  all  must  admit  the  re- 
markable fact,  that  frequent  as  eternal  life  is  men- 
tioned, yet  no  sacred  writer  ever  ventured  to  speak 
of  eternal  death  ;  and  it  is  with  the  application  of  this 
word  to  future  punishment  we  are  at  present  chiefly 
concerned. 

In  Luke  xx.  34 — 36,  we  have  this  world,  and  that 
world  mentioned,  or  this  age  and  that  age  or  state. — 
But  as  it  requires  no  particular  consideration,  it  is  un- 
necessary to  transcribe  it.  I  would  only  remark,  that 
aionos  here  cannot  mean  endless  duration  or  forever. 
It  would  not  do  to  say  the  children  of  this  forever  mar- 
ry, and  the  children  of  that  forever  do  not  marry. 


SECTION  VII. 

ALL  THE  PLACES  WHERE  AION  AND  AIONIOS  ARE  USED 
TO  EXPRESS  THE  DURATION  OF  PUNISHMENT,  PAR- 
TICULARLY CONSfDERED,  IN  WHATEVER  WAY  REN- 
DERED IN  THE   COMMOM  VERSION. 

Matt.  xxv.  46.  "  And  these  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment :  but  the  righteous  into  life 
eternal."     See  also  verse  41,  which  refers  to  the  same 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  309 

persons,  and  the  same  punishment.  Before  we  pro- 
ceed to  consider  these  words,  we  beg  leave  to  make 
some  general  remarks  on  chapters  xxiv.  and  xxv.,  to- 
gether. 

1st.  What  is  contained  in  these  two  chapters  is  one 
continued  discourse  of  our  Lord's,  addressed  to  his  dis- 
ciples. The  word  then,  in  verse  1,  of  chapter  xxv., 
shows  this.  "Then  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be 
likened  unto  ten  virgins."  When  was  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  to  be  likened  to  this  ?  The  answer  is  found 
in  chapter  xxiv.,  which  is  at  the  comino;  of  Christ  to 
destroy  Jerusalem.  It  is  further  manifest  from  chapter 
xxvi.  1,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jesus  had  finished 
all  these  sayings."  And  what  sayings  could  these  be 
but  all  the  sayings  contained  in  the  two  chapters? — 
For  it  will  be  difficult  to  point  out  any  change  of  sub- 
ject from  verse  4,  of  chapter  xxiv.,  to  the  end  of  cap- 
ter  xxv.  That  this  discourse  was  delivered  to  the  dis- 
ciples alone,  is  plain  from  comparing  chapter  xxiv.  1 — 
4,  with  chapter  xxvi.  1,  2. 

2d.  The  whole  of  this  discourse  is  in  answ^er  to  the 
questions  put  by  the  disciples,  verse  3,  of  chapter  xxiv. 
"Tell  us  when  shall  these  things  be?  And  what  shall 
be  the  sign  of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world," 
or  age?  This  supposes  he  had  said  something  about 
his  coming,  which  v^^e  find  was  the  case  from  the  last 
verse  of  chapter  xxiii.  The  questions  put,  were  to 
obtain  information  about  this  coming,  and  the  signs 
whereby  they  might  know  its  approach.  All  allow" 
the  coming,  in  chapter  xxiv.,  refers  to  our  Lord's 
coming  at  the  end  of  tlie  Jewish  dispensation,  but 
many  contend  that  the  coming,  in  chapter  xxv.,  refers 
to  his  coming  at  the  end  of  this  world.  But  the  word 
then,  so  clearly  marks  the  connexion  of  these  two 
chapters,  as  to  forbid  such  a  supposition.     Nor  can 


310 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 


any  man  point  out,  where  our  Lord  left  off  speaking  of 
the  one  coming,  and  began  to  speak  of  the  other.  He 
mentions  his  coming,  chapter  xxiv.  3,  27,  30,  37,  39, 
42,  44,  46,  48,  50^  and  in  chap.  xxv.  6,  10,  13,  19, 
27,  31,  as  one;  nor  can  any  one  doubt  that  the  same 
coming,  chap.  xxv.  31,  is  the  same  as  that,  chap  xxiv. 
30 — 35,  from  the  language  used  and  the  circumstances 
mentioned.  See  also  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28  ;  Luke  ix.  26, 
27  ;  Mark  viii.  38,  and  ix.  1.  From  verse  4  of  chap, 
xxiv.  our  Lord  proceeds  to  answer  the  disciples'  ques- 
tions, and  points  out  particularly  the  signs  whereby 
they  might  know  that  his  coming  was  at  hand.  These 
I  need  not  particularize. 

3d.  What  has  led  many  to  conclude,  that  chap,  xxv, 
refers  to  a  day  of  general  judgment,  is,  overlooking  the 
connexion  between  the  two  chapters,  marked  by  the 
word  then,  in  verse  1  of  chap.  xxv.  and  not  noticing 
how  exactly  the  three  parts  of  chap.  xxv.  correspond 
to  and  illustrate  three  things  inculcated  on  the  disci- 
ples from  verse  42  to  the  end  of  chap.  xxiv.  These 
I  shall  briefly  notice,  hoping  the  reader  W'ili  compare 
the  passages  I  refer  to.     Notice,  then, 

1st.  That  our  Lord  inculcates  on  his  disciples  the 
duty  of  watchfulness,  in  view  of  his  coming.  See 
chap.  xxiv.  42 — 44.  Let  the  reader  then  compare 
these  three  verses  with  chap.  xxv.  1 — 13,  and  we 
think  he  must  be  convinced,  that  the  parable  of  the 
ten  virgins  was  spoken  to  illustrate,  and  enforce  on  his 
disciples  this  very  duty.  Hence  the  parable  ends  with 
these  words,  expressive  of  its  object — "Watch,  there- 
fore, for  ye  know  neither  the  day  nor  the  hour  wherein 
the  Son  of  Man  cometh  ;"  which  are  almost  the  very 
words  in  which  he  stated  the  duty  of  watchfulness  in 
chap.  xxiv.  43,  44.  Who  can  dispute  this?  But 
adujit  it,  and  Matt.  xxv.  must  be  given  up  as  referring 


AN    INQUmr PART    II.  311 

to  a  day  of  general  judgment  at  the  end  of  this 
world. 

2d.  In  chap.  xxiv.  45,  our  Lord  also  inculcates  on 
his  disciples  the  duty  of  faithfulness,  in  view  of  his 
coming.  Let  the  reader  compare  the  second  division 
of  chap.  XXV.  from  verse  14 — 31,  and  we  think  he 
must  also  be  convinced,  that  the  parable  of  the  talents, 
was  spoken  by  our  Lord  to  illustrate  and  enforce  the 
duty  of  faithfulness  upon  them.  Here  1  ask  every  can- 
did reader  to  say — Is  it  not  the  same  Son  of  Man  Avhich 
is  mentioned  in  both  chapters  ?  Are  not  the  servants 
to  whom  the  goods  were  delivered  the  same  as  in  chap. 
xxiv.  45  ?■  Is  not  the  faithfulness  and  unfaithfulness 
of  the  servants  the  same  in  both?  And  is  not  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  to  reckon  with  them  the  same 
coming  in  both  ?  Who  can  with  any  show  of  reason 
deny  these  things  ?  But  who  can  admit  them,  yet 
contend  that  this  second  part  of  chap.  xxv.  has  any 
relation  to  a  day  of  general  judgment  ? 

3d.  In  verse  46,  and  to  the  end  of  chap.  xxiv.  our 
Lord  states  the  consequences  which  would  result,  ac- 
cording as  they  were  found  watchful  and  faithful,  or 
the  contrary.  Now,  compare  this  with  the  third  di- 
vision of  chap.  xxv.  from  verse  31 — 46,  and  all  must 
see  how  exactly  the  one  corresponds  to  the  other.  In 
the  one,  he  states  what  rewards  and  punishments 
would  be  awarded,  at  his  coming,  to  his  servants ;  and 
in  the  other,  he  goes  on  to  illustrate  this,  by  what  may 
as  justly  be  called 'the  parable  of  the  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments, as  the  two  former  are  called  the  parables  of 
the  ten  virgins  and  talents.  This  agreement  of  chaps, 
xxiv,  xxv,  is  not  an  accidental  thing,  but  the  effect  of 
design,  and  clearly  marked  by  the  word  then,  with 
which  chap.  xxv.  begins  ;  but  it  is  not  noticed  by  most 
readers  from  the  improper  division   of  our  Lord's  dis- 


312  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II. 

course  into  chapters  and  verses.  Our  Lord  no  more 
ends  his  discourse,  chap.  xxiv.  than  Paul  ends  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  \v.  If  the  question  is 
asked,  ivhen  shall  the  kingdoni  of  heaven  be  likened 
unto  ten  virgins  ?  The  answer  is  found  in  chap.  xxiv. 
42,  44,  46,  50,  where  his  coming  is  repeatedly  men- 
tioned, and  in  verse  34  is  expressly  said  to  be  during 
that  generalion.  We  ask  every  candid  man.  Is  not  the 
Son  of  Man,  mentioned  chap.  xxv.  31,  the  very  same 
Son  of  Man  as  is  spoken  of  in  chap,  xxiv?  And  is 
not  his  coming  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels 
with  him,  tbe  same  coming  and  glory  as  is  mentioned 
chap.  xxiv.  30?  It  was  this  perfect  agreement  of  the 
three  divisions  of  cbap.  xxv.  to  the  three  things  stated 
in  chap.  xxiv.  which  changed  my  views  of  this  subject 
many  years  ago,  so  that  they  are  not  influenced  by  any 
change  of  opinions  since. 

Keeping  these  general  remarks  in  view,  let  us  at- 
tend to  the  words — -"And  these  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  eter- 
nal." The  first  question  is — "'  Who  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment  ?"  The  context  answers, 
the  goats,  verse  33,  whose  conduct  is  described,  verses 
41 — 46.  The  wicked  and  slothful  servants,  verses 
24 — 29-  The  foolish  virgins,  verses  10 — 12.  And 
the  evil  serv^ants,  chap.  xxiv.  48,  49. 

2d.  Let  us  ask — What  everlasting  ])unishment  were 
these  persons  to  ojo  away  into?  Answer:  the  ever- 
lasting fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels,  verse 
41.  The  outer  darkness,  verse  30.  See  also  verse 
10,  and  chap.  xxiv.  51,  all  of  which,  it  will  be  allow- 
ed, refer  to  the  same  punishment.  In  the  first  part  of 
this  Inquiry  it  has  been  shown,  that  by  the  devil  and 
his  angels,  verse  41,  our  Lord  referred  to  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  and  opposers  of  Christianity.     In  the  In- 


AN    INQUIRV PART    II.  313 

quiry  into  the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  &c.  it  has  been  also 
shown,  that  Jire  is  a  figure  often  used  in  Scripture  lor 
temporal  punishment,  and  is  the  same  here,  as  hell  fire 
in  other  places.  \n  both  Inquiries  it  has  been  shown, 
that  the  term  everlasting,  is  applied  to  the  punishment 
which  the  Jews  are  now  endurins;.  In  confirmation  of 
these  things,  comp.  Luke  xiii.  23 — 31  ;  Matt.  viii.  11, 
12  ;  xiii.  and  xxii.  13. 

3d.  Let  us  ask  again — When  were  these  persons  to 
go  away  into  everlasting  punishment?  The  answer 
from  the  context  evidently  is — "  When  the  Son  of  Man 
came  in  his  glory,"  verse  31.  Well,  when  was  this? 
Not  at  the  end  of  this  material  world,  for  not  a  word  is 
said  about  this  in  the  two  chapters.  It  was  when  the 
Lord  of  the  servants  came  to  reckon  with  them,  verse 
19.  When  the  bridegroom  came,  verse  10.  At  the 
time  when  the  slothful  servants  were  not  looking  for 
him,  chap.  xxiv.  41 — 5L  And  at  the  time  referred 
to,  verse  44,  when  he  said  to  his  disciples,  "  be  ye  also 
ready  ;  for  in  such  an  hour  as  ye  think  not,  the  Son  of 
Man  Cometh."  Christ's  father  only  knew  of  this  day, 
verse  36.  It  was  to  come  like  a  thief  in  ihe  night,  or 
like  the  flood  on  the  old  world,  verses  37,  43.  But  it 
was  certainly  to  come  during  that  generation,  verse  34. 
Then  he  was  to  reward  every  man  according  to  his 
works,  which  exactly  agrees  to  some  going  away  into 
everlasting  punishment,  and  some  into  life  eternal. 

But  it  will  be  asked — What  throne  of  glory  did 
Christ  sit  on  when  he  came  to  take  vengeance  on  the 
Jewish  nation  at  the  end  of  the  age  ?  The  Greek  in 
chap.  XXV.  31  is,  tote  kathisei  epi  thronou  doxes  autou, 
and  is  the  same  which  Matthew  used,  chap.  xis.  28, 
and  is  rendered  in  both  places  by  Dr.  Campbell  in  the 
same  way.  The  whole  verse  he  renders  thus — 
^'  Verily  1  say  unto  you,  that  at  the  renovation,  when 


314  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

the  Son  of  Man  shall  be  seated  on  his  glorious  throne, 
ye  my  followers,  sitting  also  upon  twelve  thrones,  shall 
judge  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  Here  let  the  reader 
turn  to  the  last  Section,  and  read  the  quotations  made 
from  Dr.  Campbell  and  Macknight  on  this  verse. — 
These  writers  have  shown,  that  the  coming  of  Christ 
was  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  that  the 
throne  on  which  he  sat  was  the  throne  of  his  mediato- 
rial kingdom,  and  the  judging  then  to  take  place,  the 
ruling  or  governing  men  with  his  truth.  His  throne 
was  no  more  a  literal,  visible  throne,  than  were  the 
twelve  thrones  of  the  apostles.  The  time  when,  the 
nature  of  the  throne,  and  similar  language  used  in  both 
cases  by  Matthew,  show,  that  there  is  no  reference  to 
a  day  of  general  judgment,  as  is  generally  supposed. 
If  Matthew  used  this  language,  chap.  xix.  28,  as  these 
writers  explain  it,  by  what  fair  rule  of  interpretation  do 
we  give  the  same  words,  chap.  xxv.  31,  such  a  very 
different  interpretation  ?  Men  now  would  feel  indig- 
nant  at  having  their  words  interpreted  in  such  an  ar- 
bitrary and  capricious  manner.  What  right,  then,  has 
any  man  to  affirm,  that  the  Son  of  Man's  coming  in 
his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  refers  to 
a  day  of  general  judgment,  when  the  same  writer,  in 
the  same  book,  has  used  the  same  or  similar  language, 
where  it  is  manifest  he  is  speaking  of  Christ's  coming 
at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  or  dispensation  ?  It  is 
well  known,  that  the  term  rendered  angd,  simply  sig- 
nifies a  messenger  of  any  kind  ;  and  it  is  allowed,  on 
all  hands,  that  angels  are  mentioned  as  connected  with 
our  Lord's  coming  at  this  period.  See  Matt.  xxiv.  30, 
31,  and  xvi.  27;  Mark  viii.  38;  ix.  1,  and  xiii.  26, 
27  ;  Luke  xxi.  27.  The  angels  being  then  mention- 
ed, is  a  confirmation,  not  an  objection  to  the  views  ad- 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II.  315 

vanced.     See  Whitby  and  Macknight  on  Matt.  xxlv. 
who  show  the  ano-els  to  be  human  beings. 

But  it  will  be  objected — How,  upon  your  views, 
can  it  be  said,  ''  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all 
nations  ?"  Answer  ;  the  phrase  "  all  nations"  occurs 
twice  before  in  this  very  discourse  of  our  Lord's,  chap, 
xxiv,  9,  14.  "  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  nations 
for  my  name  sake.  And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom 
shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world,  for  a  witness  unto 
all  nations,  and  then  shall  the  end  come."  What  end 
shall  come  ?  Evidently  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age, 
verse  3,  which  took  place  about  forty  years  after  our 
Lord  delivered  this  discourse.  During  this  period  the 
gospel  was  preached  among  all  nations,  Markxiii.  10, 
or  throughout  the  Roman  empire,  which  was  then 
called  the  whole  world,  Luke  ii.  1.  See  Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  20 ;  Col.  i.  6,  23  ;  Rom.  i.  8,  and  x.  18.  Judea 
was  then  a  province  of  the  Roman  empire.  That  the 
apostles  preached  the  gospel  throughout  the  Roman 
empire,  and  were  hated  of  all  nations,  no  one  disputes. 
We  have  then  found  in  this  discourse,  the  nil  nations 
to  be  gathered  before  Christ  seated  on  his  mediatorial 
throne.  It  is  obvious,  that  whoever  contends  for  a  lite- 
ral gathering  together  of  all  nations  before  him,  ought 
also  to  contend,  that  every  individual  of  the  same  all 
nations  heard  the  gospel,  and  that  every  individual  of 
them  hated  the  apostles  for  Christ's  name  sake.  But 
how  in  this  case  could  they  have  had  any  converts  to 
their  doctrine  ?  And  no  ;separaiion  could  have  taken 
place,  for  all  the  nations  would  have  heen  goats.  The 
gathering  together  of  all  nations  before  him,  need  not 
be  extended  to  m.ore  than  such  as  heard  the  gospel, 
and  professed  it,  some  of  whom  did,  but  others  did  not 
bring  forth  its  proper  fruits.  This  limited  view,  we 
think  is  favored  by  the  scope  of  our  Lord's  discourse. 


^1^  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II. 

For  example,  it  was  not  the  whole  world,  or  all  na- 
tions, but  the  king-dom  of  heaven,  or  Christ's  professed 
disciples,  who  are  likened  unto  the  virgins,  verse  1. — 
Nor  was  it  to  all  nations,  but  to  his  own  servants, 
Christ  delivered  his  goods,  verse  14.  See  also  chap, 
xxiv.  42 — 46.  And  the  replies  made  to  the  king  by 
both  goats  and  sheep,  proceed  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  both  professors  of  his  name.  But  it  is  not  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  confine  the  sense  of  this  phrase  ;  for, 
since  Christ  sat  down  on  his  glorious  throne,  he  has 
been  judging  the  nations  of  the  world  in  righteousness, 
and  such  of  them  as  would  not  serve  him,  he  has  bro- 
ken in  pieces  like  a  potters  vessel.  But  let  us  in- 
quire, 

1st.  Were  there  are  any  false  professors  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  when  our  Lord  came  at  the  end  of 
the  age.  This  needs  no  proof,  for  it  is  notorious,  and 
universally  admitted.  There  were  foolish  virgins,  and 
servants  who  had  not  improved  their  talents.  See  also 
chap.  xxiv.  10 — 12.  And  see  the  epistles,  for  com- 
plaints made  of  professors  by  the  apostles.  When 
Christ  came  to  reckon  with  his  servants  he  found  some 
faithful  and  watcljful,  but  others  saying,  my  Lord  de- 
layeth  his  coming,  counting  him  an  hard  master,  smi- 
ting their  fellow  servants,  and  eating  and  drinking  with 
the  drunken.  When  he  ascended  to  God's  right  hand, 
he  was  like  a  man  travelling  into  a  far  country  to  re- 
ceive unto  himself  a  kingdom.  See  Luke  xix.  12 — 27. 
At  the  end  of  the  age,  he  returned,  having  received 
his  kingdom,  and  called  his  servants  to  an  account  of 
their  conduct  during  his  absence.  Before  he  went 
away,  he  commanded  all  to  be  faithful  and  watchful. 
But  such  was  the  state  in  which  he  found  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  when  he  returned.  The  whole  slumbered 
and  slept.     Many  were  found  neither  looking  for,  nor 


I 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  317 

prepared  for  his  coming.  He  had  forewarned  them  of 
the  consequences,  and  this  third  division  of  chap.  xxv. 
sets  forth  the  rewards  and  punishments  which  he  then 
awarded  to  them.  That  much  is  said  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, to  excite  their  hopes  and  fears  relative  to  our 
Lord's  coming  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
no  one,  we  think,  will  question.  But  where  do  we 
find  what  our  Lord  promised  or  threatened,  fulfilled, 
but  in  this  very  discourse,  and  which  goes  to  show  that 
the  view  I  have  given  of  it  is  substantially  correct? — 
But  let  us  ask, 

2d.  Did  a  separation  take  place  at  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  age,  betw^een  true  and  false  professors  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  or,  between  the  goats  and  sheep? 
Nothing  can  be  more  certain.  This  separation  is  de- 
scribed under  other  figures,  such  as  a  separation  be- 
tween chaff  and  wheat,  Matt,  iii.  1 2.  Tares  and  wheat ; 
and  good  and  bad  fishes  ;  Matt.  xiii.  30 — 48.  See 
also  Matt.  viii.  11,  12,  and  xvi.  27,  28,  Christ's  fan 
purged  his  floor.  The  net  then  was  drawn  to  shore, 
and  the  good  and  bad  fishes  separated.  The  tares  were 
gathered  to  be  burned,  and  the  wheat  into  the  garner. 
Indeed,  none  but  such  as  endured  to  the  end  were 
saved  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  13.  What  is  said  about  separa- 
ting them  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the 
goats,  is  in  allusion  to  the  business  of  a  shepherd,  and 
to  Christ  who  is  called  the  good  shepherd,  and  his  true 
disciples,  sheep.  His  placing  the  sheep  on  the  right 
hand,  and  the  goats  on  the  left,  is  probably  in  reference 
to  judicial  trials,  as  may  be  seen  above  in  a  quotation 
from  Jahn.  The  rule  of  judgment  was,  offices  of  kind- 
ness performed  towards  Christ's  disciples.  The  simi- 
larity, of  the  language  used,  chap.  xxiv.  45,  46,  and 
chap.  xxv.  34 — 41,  deserves  the  reader's  notice.  In 
the  first  it  is  "  blessed  is  that  servant  whom  his  Lord) 
21  -  k 


318  AN    INQUIRY— PART    II. 

when  he  cometh,  shall  find  so  domg."  And  in  the 
last,  "  come  ye  blessed  of  my  father  inherit  the  king- 
dom," he.  Comp.  2  Tim.  i.  15 — 18,  and  Rom.xvi. 
3,  4,  as  actual  examples  of  such  kind  offices  performed. 
But  let  us  ask, 

3d.  What  everlasting  punishment  and  eternal  life 
did  those   persons  go  away  into  after  this  separation  ? 
1st.  Whnt  everlasting  punishment  did  the   goals   go 
away  into  ?     The  same  as  the  everlasting  fire,  verse 
41,  which  in  the  one  verse  is  expressed  figuratively, 
and  in   the  other  plainly.     This  everlasting  fire  was 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels,  or  the  Jews,  and 
the  opposers  of  Christianity.     To  them  was  the  Gos- 
pel first  preached  ;  by  them  it  was  first  rejected,  and 
for  them  this  punishment  is  said  to  have  been  prepared. 
But  observe,  it  is   not,  like  the  kingdom  for  the  right- 
eous, said  to  have  been   prepared  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world.      What  then  was  the   everlasting  fire  or 
punishment  prepared  for  the  Jews,   the  avowed  ene- 
mies of  Christ  and  his  Gospel,  for  these  fiilse  profes- 
sors are  said  to  go  away  into  the  same  punishment.    I 
answer,  the  kingdom  of  God  was  taken  from  them  ; 
and  I  sh.all  show  on  2  Thess,  i.  9,  that  they  have  been 
punished  with  everlasting  destruction  [mm  ihe presence 
of  the  Lord  in  his  worship  and  service.     Blindness  of 
mind,  hardness  of  heart,  and  dreadful  temporal  judg- 
ments .have  come  on  the  Jews  for  nearly  eighteen  hun- 
dred years.     In  the  Jewish  use  of  the  term  everlastings 
it  may  well  be  called  an  everlasting  fire  or  punishment. 
it  is,  then,  agreeable  to  fact,  those  of  the  kingdom   of 
heaven   not   found  watchful   and   faithful,  or  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  of  the  Gospel,  did  go  away  into,  or  have 
suffered  a  similar  punishment.     Where  are  now  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia  ?      Indeed,  where  is  any  church 
throu-^diout  what  was  then  called  the  Roman  empire  ? 


AN     IN(^UIRY PART    11.  319 

Their  candlestick  is  removed  out  of  its  place.  Those 
nations  have  been  given  up  to  blindness  of  mind  and 
hardness  of  heart  very  similar  to  the  Jews,  and  that 
they  have  suffered  severe  temporal  judgments  none 
will  deny.  The  most  inveterate  superstitions  prevail 
among  them.  The  nations  who  would  not  submit  to 
him,  or  who  have  corrupted  his  religion  after  being  fa- 
Tored  with  it,  have  suffered  similar  punishment,  and  it 
has  been  of  such  long  continuance,  that  it  may  well  be 
called  everlasting.  Christians  who  enjoy  the  gospel, 
tacitly  allow,  both  Jews  and  heathen  to  be  in  a  mis- 
erable condition,  by  their  attempts  to  convert  them  to 
the  faith  of  Christ,  But  after  all  the  time  and  labor 
and  money  spent  to  effect  this,  the  situation  of  those 
nations  is  not  much  more  hopeful  than  that  of  the  Jews. 
If  there  be  any  blessedness  in  believing  the  gospel,  and 
being  governed  by  the  laws  of  Jesus,  then  there  is 
misery  in  unbelief,  superstition  and  wickedness  ;  and 
both  on  a  national  and  individual  scale,  the  nation 
or  individual  in  such  a  condition  can  but  be  miser- 
able. 

2d.  But  what  life  eternal  did  the  righteous,  or  the 
sheep,  go  away  into  ?  As  the  everlasting  punishment, 
verse  46,  is  the  same  as  the  everlasting  fire,  verse  41, 
so  is  the  life  eternal,  verse  46,  the  same  as  the  king- 
dom said  to  be  prepared  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  What  kingdom,  then,  was  this  ?  What  king- 
dom could  it  be,  but  that  which  was  taken  from  the 
Jews  and  given  to  the  Gentiles,  called  often  the  king^ 
dom  of  heaven  and  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  kingdom  likened  unto  the  ten  virr 
gins,  verse  1.  The  kingdom  which  Jesus  went  away 
to  receive  for  himself  when  he  ascended  to  the  father, 
and  on  the  throne  of  which  he  is  represented  as  sitting, 
gild  calling  his  servants  to  arj  ^ccourit  when  he  returue 


320  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

ed.  This  kingdom  is  called  the  everlasting  kingdom 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  does  not  consist  in  meat 
and  drink,  but  in  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in 
the  Holy  Ghost.  That  such  a  kingdom,  or  life  eter- 
nal, was  expected,  is  evident,  for  our  Lord  said,  Luke 
xxi.  31,  32.  "When  ye  see  these  thmgs  come  to 
pass,  know  ye  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  nigh  at 
hand.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  this  generation  shall 
not  pass  away,  till  all  {3e  fulfilled."  And  verse  28 — 
"When  these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  then  look 
up  and  lift  up  your  heads,  for  your  redemption  draweth 
near."  This  kingdom,  or  life  eternal,  might  be  said 
to  be  prepared  for  them  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  for  it  was  included  in  the  promise  of  Christ 
from  the  beginning. 

It  is  an  unsupported  assertion,  from  any  part  of  our 
Lord's  discourse,  that  this  kingdom,  or  the  life  eternal 
enjoyed  by  the  righteous,  is  the  happiness  of  the  heav- 
enly state.  But  the  view  I  have  given  is  amply  sup- 
ported both  by  it  and  other  parts  of  Scripture.  It  is 
the  same  as  going  in  with  the  bridegroom  to  the  mar- 
riage, verse  10.  And  entering  into  the  joy  of  their 
Lord,  21,  23.  And  to  inherit  this  kingdom  is  to  enjoy 
all  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  it.  See  Rom.  xiv, 
17;  Matt.  viii.  11,  12,  and  Luke  xxii.  29,  30.  My 
views,  then,  accord  with  the  nature  of  the  kingdom 
Christ  received  from  the  father,  the  throne  on  which 
he  sits,  and  his  rule  and  government  in  it,  and  which, 
at  the  period  called  the  end,  he  is  to  deliver  up  to  God 
the  father,  1  Cor  xv.  24 — 28.  To  this  kingdom  he 
had  a  right  to  invite  all  those  who  endured  to  the  end, 
chap.  xxiv.  13,  and  to  punish  all  those  who  said,  "we 
will  not  have  this  man  to  rule  over  us." 

It  has  long  been  considered  one  of  the  strongest  ar- 
guments in  favor  of  eternal  misery,  that  the  same  Greek 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  321 

word  is  rendered  here  everlasting  and  eternal,  and  ap- 
plied both  to  life  and  punishment.  It  is  hence  infer- 
red, that  if  the  punishment  is  not  endless,  neither  is 
life.  Universalists  do  not  admit  this,  for  they  adduce 
some  texts  where  everlasting  is  used  in  the  same  verse, 
where  it  is  allowed  by  their  opponents  that  it  is  used 
both  in  a  limited  and  unlimited  sense.  But  if  my  views 
are  found  correct,  it  puts  a  final  end  to  this  argument 
and  mode  of  reasonino-  for  everlastinor  is  not  used  in 
either  case  to  express  endless  duration.  A  brief  sketch 
of  my  views  of  the  phrase  ''  everlasting  life,"  has  been 
given  above,  and  some  things  may  just  be  noticed  here 
in  confirmation  of  them. 

1st.  It  is  concluded  by  many,  that  this  chapter  con- 
tains an  account  of  the  end  of  this  world,  and  the  day 
of  judgment.  But  why  is  such  a  conclusion  drawn? 
for  certainly,  though  it  speaks  of  everlasting  fire,  ever- 
lasting punishment,  and  life  eternal,  it  gives  no  intima- 
tion that  these  are  suffered  or  enjoyed  in  another  state 
of  existence.  The  general  usage  of  the  word  ever- 
lasting is  against  such  a  conclusion  ;  and  it  is  beyond 
all  debate,  that  this  term  is  applied  in  other  texts  to 
the  temporal  punishment  of  the  Jews,  which  no  one 
believes  to  be  of  endless  duration.  Besides,  the  whole 
scope  of  our  Lord's  discourse  shows,  that  here  the  word 
everlasting  is  used  to  express  the  duration  of  this  very 
punishment,  and  is  the  fulfilment  of  what  Daniel  pre- 
dicted, chap.  xii.  2,  considered  above.  This  is  con- 
firmed from  the  word  kolasis,  here  vendeYed  punish- 
ment.  Parkhurst  says  it  comes  from  kolazo,  to  punish, 
and  it  comes  from  da  in  the  Hebrew,  which  signifies 
to  restrain.  This  punishment,  then,  is  for  the  purpose 
o(  restraining  the  subjects  of  it,  and  not,  as  we  are 
sometimes  told,  for  "  the  glory  of  divine  justice  in  their 
eternal  misery ;"  or,  that  "  the  happiness  of  the  right- 


822  AN    INQUIRY PART   II. 

eous  may  be  sweetened  in  seeing  the  smoke  of  their 
torment  ascend  up  forever  and  ever."  The  sense  given 
by  Parkhurst  to  the  above  words  is  supported  by  their 
Scripture  usage.  See  ]  John  iv.  18  ;  Acts  iv.  21  ;  2 
Peter  ii.  9,  On  this  last  text  see  my  answer  to  Mr. 
Sabine.  The  word  rendered  punishment  in  both  pla- 
ces, is  a  confirmation  of  my  opinions. 

2d.  The  life  eternal,  verse  46,  and  the  kingdom  the 
righteous  are  called  to  inherit,  verse  24,  are  the  same, 
or  the  life  eternal  is  to  be  enjoyed  in  this  kingdom.  It 
has  then  been  shown  above,  that  eternal  life  was  pro- 
mised to  Christ's  disciples  in  the  world  to  come^  or  the 
age  of  the  Messiah,  which  ceitainly  agrees  to  this  pas- 
sage. This  passage  is  the  fulfilment  of  what  Christ 
promised,  Mark  x.  30  ;  Luke  xviii.  30 ;  Matt.  xix. 
29,  considered  above.  The  father  appointed  to  Christ 
a  kingdom,  and  he  having  returned  from  receiving  it, 
his  faithful  followers  enjoyed  the  life  or  happiness  of  it. 
They  entered  into  the  joy  of  their  Lord,  and  shone 
forth  like  the  sun  in  the  kin(2;dom  of  their  father. 

It  may  be  objected — "  How  could  it  be  said, '  these 
shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal,'  if  endless  duration  in  a  fu- 
ture state  be  not  meant,  for  such  persons  could  only 
live  a  few  years  in  this  world  either  to  suffer  or  en- 
joy ?"  See  this  objection  noticed  page  307.  I  would 
add  here,  that  it  is  certain,  everlasting  is  applied  in 
Scripture  both  to  punishment  and  enjoyment,  when 
all  allow  endless  duration  is  not  meant.  Why  not  so 
here,  when  we  have  seen  tiiat  eternal  life  was  to  be 
enjoyed  in  the  icorld  to  come,  which  is  to  end  ?  That 
the  present  punishment  of  the  Jews  is  called  everlast- 
ing, no  one  can  dispute,  and  we  think  has  been  shown, 
is  the  punishment  referred  to  in  this  very  passage.  If 
the  Jews,  while  in  Canaan,  enjoyed  it  successively  m 


AN    INQUIRY PART  II*  323 

in  their  generations  as  an  everlasting  possession,  and 
now  cast  out  of  it,  endure  in  their  generations  an  ever- 
lasting punishment,  why  not  also  believers  enjoy  eter- 
nal  life,  in  a  similar  way,  in  the  age  of  the  Messiah  ? 
This  life,  I  conceive,  is  not  called  eternal  on  account 
of  its  endless  enjoyment  by  the  individuals,  but  from 
its  being  a  life  connected  with  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
which  is  called  an  everlastina  kino-dom,  which  is  to  en- 
dure  until  the  end,  or  resurrection  of  all  the  dead,  and 
then  mortality  shall  be  swallowed  up  of  life  in  being 
forever  with  the  Lord.  It  is  everlasting  in  a  similar 
sense  as  the  kingdom  itself,  or  the  gospel  of  this  king- 
dom, which  is  called  the  everlasting  gospel. 

Is  it  further  objected — "That  Matt.  xxiv.  has  a 
double  meaning,  first,  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
during  that  generation,  and  second,  in  the  dissolution 
of  this  world  and  a  day  of  general  judgment  ?"  But 
why  not  give  it  twenty  meanings  and  accomplishments 
as  well  as  two  ?  And  why  not  say  the  same  of  all  the 
discourses  which  our  Lord  delivered?  Our  Lord  de- 
clared, "  All  these  things  shall  come  on  this  genera- 
tion," but  did  he  intimate  that  they  were  again  to  be 
fulfilled  in  a  still  higher  sense  at  a  day  of  general  judg- 
ment ?  No,  nothing  like  this  is  said  by  him ;  and 
without  proof,  such  an  objection  does  not  require  a  se- 
rious refutation.  At  any  rate,  let  the  evidence  for  this 
be  produced,  and  we  will  give  it  a  serious  considera- 
tion. 

2  Thess.  i.  9.  "  Who  shall  be  punished  with  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and 
from  the  glory  of  his  power."  We  have  considered 
this  passage,  with  its  context,  very  fully  in  the  Univer- 
salist  Magazine,  vol.  v.  beginning  at  page  157.  To  it 
we  refer  the  reader,  and  shall  here  only  give  an  abridg- 
ment of  our  remarks.     Let  us  consider, 


324  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

1st.  Who  the  persons  were  to  whom  Paul  alluded 
when  he  said,  "  who  shall  be  punished  with  everlast- 
ing destruction,"  Most  people  say — "  All  the  wick- 
ed." The  apostle  and  the  Thessalonians  knew  who 
they  were  to  their  painful  experience,  for  they  were  the 
persons  who  troubled  them,  verse  6,  and  from  whom 
their  persecutions  arose,  verse  4.  Who,  then,  perse- 
cuted and  troubled  them  ?  The  Thessalonians  were 
persecuted  by  their  own  countrymen.  1  Epist.  chap.  ii. 
14,  15.  But  their  persecutions  chiefly  arose  from  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  as  is  evident  from  Acts  xvii.  5 — 7. 
Comp.  1  Thess.  ii.  15.  The  whole  New  Testament 
shows  this.  But  it  is  evident  from  the  context.  Let 
the  question  be  asked — Who  shall  be  punished  with 
everlasting  destruction?  The  answer  is  found,  verse 
8.  Those  "  that  know  not  God,  and  obeyed  not  the 
gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Was  not  this  the 
case  with  the  Jews  ?  Comp.  John  xvi.  3.  God  was 
to  recompense  tribulation,  and  to  take  vengeance  on 
those  that  knew  not  God  ;  and  God's  vengeance  on 
the  Jews  is  expressly  called — "  the  days  o(  ven2[eance, 
that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled," 
Luke  xxi.  22.  Comp.  also  Luke  xviii.  7,  8;  Rom. 
xii.  19.  The  connexion  between  the  8th  and  9th 
verses  clearly  shows,  that  the  vengeance  to  be  taken 
on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  who  shall  be  punish- 
ed with  everlasting  destruction,  refers  to  the  same  per* 
sons,  and  the  same  punishment.  And  in  verse  6,  it  is 
said,  it  is  a  righteous  thing  with  God  "  to  recompense 
tribulation  to  them  ;"  and  which  our  Lord  calls,  Matt, 
xxiv.  29,  ^^ great  tribulation,  such  as  was  not  since  the 
beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time,  no,  nor  ever  shall 
be."  Comp.  verse  21.  By  troubling  or  persecuting 
Christians,  the  Jews  were  to  fill  up  the  measure  of 
their  iniquity,  and  bring  upon  themselves  such  tribula- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  325 

tions.  Accordingly;  it  is  said,  verse  5,  "  which  is  a 
manifest  token  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God." — 
What  is  a  manifest  token  of  the  righteous  judgment  of 
God  ?  The  answer  is,  verse  4,  the  persecutions  and 
tribulations  which  the  Thessalonians  endured.  But 
this  only  provokes  the  question — A  manifest  token  of 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God  upon  whom  ?  The 
answer  evidently  is,  verse  6,  upon  them  that  troubled 
the  Thessalonians,  which  we  think  beyond  all  dispute, 
were  the  unbelieving  Jews.  Comp.  Philip,  i.  28,  where 
it  is  called  "  an  evident  token  of  perdition"  to  them. 
By  pursuing  such  a  course,  the  Jews  fulfilled  what  our 
Lord  predicted,  and  brought  upon  themselves  all  the 
righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth.  See  Malt,  xxiii. 
34_36,  and  1  Thess.  ii.  16. 

2d.  Let  us  now  consider  at  ivhat  time  such  persons 
were  to  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction.  If 
the  persons  were  the  unbelieving  Jews,  the  answer  is 
given  already  in  the  above  remarks.  It  was  at  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem.  But  let  us  examine  the  con- 
text and  we  shall  see  this  confirmed.  The  particular 
time  specified  is,  "  When  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  re- 
vealed from  heaven."  Well,  when  was  this  to  be? — 
It  is  answered  by  the  context,  when  he  recompensed 
tribulation  to  the  Jews  who  were  the  troublers  of  the 
Thessalonians,  and  was  not  this  at  the  end  of  the  age, 
when  God's  wrath  came  upon  them  to  the  uttermost  ? 
This  period  is  expressly  called,  the  day  when  the  Son 
of  Man  is  revealed,  Luke  xvii.  30.  Comp.  Rom.  ii. 
5  ;  I  Peter  i,  5,  13  ;  iv.  13—19,  and  v.  1—5.  This 
revelation  is  said  to  be  "  from  heaven,"  and  the  angels 
are  said  to  be  connected  with  it,  which  exactly  corres- 
ponds to  what  is  said,  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  31.  It  has  been 
shown  that  the  term^re  is  used  as  a  figure  to  express 
God's  judgments  on  the  Jewish  nation.     See  Mai.  iv.' 


326  AN    INQUIRY PART    11. 

1,  &;c.  But  there  are  some  things  mentioned  in  the 
context  which  were  to  take  place  at  the  same  time, 
"  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven," 
which  are  irreconcilable  with  the  common  views  en- 
tertained of  this  passage,  but  which  strongly  confirm 
the  explanation  I  have  given  of  it. 

1st.  At  this  same  time  the  Thessalonians  were  to 
obtain  rest,  for  it  is  said,  "  and  to  you  wlio  are  trou- 
bled, rest  with  us,  ivhcn  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  re- 
vealed from  heaven."  The  rest  referred  to  was  evi- 
dently rest  from  the  persecutions  they  were  enduring. 
See  the  context,  and  compare  2  Cor.  vii.  5,  and  Acts 
IX.  3L  If  the  day  of  judgment  be  the  time  referred 
to,  then  the  Thessalonians  are  not  to  obtain  rest  from 
their  persecutions  until  it  arrives.  But  surely  this 
cannot  be,  for  the  day  of  judgment  is  not  yet  come, 
and  they  have  long  ago  found  rest  where  all  the  wea- 
ry find  rest,  and  hear  no  more  the  voice  of  the  op- 
pressor. Did  the  Thessalonians  then  find  rest  at  the 
period  when  Jesus  was  revealed  to  take  vengeance 
on  the  Jewish  nation  ?  Yes  ;  this  is  a  matter  of  his- 
tory as  well  as  fact.  Our  Lord,  referring  to  this  very 
period,  said  to  his  disciples,  "  When  these  things  be- 
gin to  come  to  pass,  then  lift  up  your  heads,  for  your 
redemption  draweth  nigh,"  Luke  xxi.  28.  Those  who 
endured  to  the  end,  were  not  only  saved  from  the 
calamities  which  came  on  the  Jews,  but  the  Christians 
were  at  rest  from  their  persecutions  throughout  the 
Roman  empire.  They  were  too  much  in  trouble 
themselves  then,  to  trouble  others. 

2d.  It  is  obvious  that  the  Thessalonians  were  to  ob- 
tain rest  at  the  same  time  that  God  was  to  recompense 
tribulation  to  their  troublers  or  persecutors.  This  is 
plain  from  verses  6,  7,  quoted  together  :  "  Seeing  it  is 
a  righteous  thing  with  God  to  recompense  tribulation 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  327 

to  them  that  trouble  you  ;  and  to  you  who  are  troubled 
rest  with  us."  And  when  were  both  these  to  take 
place  ?  It  is  immediately  added,  "  When  the  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven."  If  the  end  of 
this  world  be  referred  to,  it  is  a  plain  case,  that  God  is 
not  to  recompense  tribulation  to  those  who  troubled 
the  Thessalonians  until  this  period,  nor  until  then  are 
the  Thessalonians  to  obtain  rest.  But  the  common 
belief  is,  that  the  wicked  are  punished  from  the  mo- 
ment of  their  death  until  the  day  of  judgment,  and 
are  to  be  punished  forever  after  it.  The  common  view 
of  this  text  therefore  must  be  abandoned. 

3d.  But  the  time  when  all  this  was  to  take  place, 
is  further  designated,  verse  10,  which  Macknight  ren- 
ders thus  :  "  in  that  day  when  he  shall  come  to  be 
glorified  through  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  by  all 
the  believers;  and  by  you,  because  our  testimony  was 
believed  by  you."  Was  Christ  glorified  then  through 
his  saints  w^hen  he  yielded  vengeance  on  the  Jews,  in 
the  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple?  We  pre- 
sume no  one  questions  this.  They  obtained  rest,  they 
lifted  up  their  heads,  and  shone  forth  like  the  sun  in 
the  kingdom  of  their  father.  If  believers  glorified 
God  when  Saul,  the  persecutor,  was  converted  to  the 
faith,  (Galations  i.  23,  24,)  how  much  more  when 
they  saw  their  persecutors  generally  removed,  and 
"  the  son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom,"  Matt,  xvi. 
28,  compare  Rev.  xv.  3,4,  and  xi.  17.  But  all  these 
things  will  be  confirmed  by  considering 

3d.  The  nature  and  duration  of  the  punishment 
here  mentioned.  1st.  Let  us  notice  the  nature  of  the 
punishment.  It  is  called  "  destruction  from  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power," 
It  will  not  be  disputed,  that  the  punishment  described 
in  these  words,  is  the  same  as  the  righteous  judgment 


328  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

of  God,  mentioned  verse  5,  and  called  tribulation, 
verse  6  and  the  vengeance  to  be  yielded,  ve:se  8. — 
Nor  will  it  be  questioned,  that  the  punishment  de- 
scribed in  all  these  verses  is  to  be  inflicted  on  the  same 
persons.  They  are  to  be  pmiished,  and  punished  with 
everlasting"  destruction,  yea,  with  everlasting  destruc- 
tion from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glo- 
ry of  his  poiuer.  It  is  easily  perceived,  that  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  nature  of  the  punishment  depends 
on  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 

Presence  of  the  Lord.  What  then  is  the  scriptural 
sense  of  this  expression  ?  It  may  just  be  observed, 
that  the  phrases  face  of  God,  and  face  of  the  Lord, 
are  the  same  in  Scripture  as  presence  of  God,  and  pre 
sence  of  the  Lord.  By  the  presence  of  God,  or  pre- 
sence of  the  Lord  in  Scripture,  is  sometimes  meant 
his  being  every  where  present.  Thus  David  says,  Ps. 
cxxxix.  7,  8,  '  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit  ? — 
Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ?  If  I  ascend 
up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there  ;  If  I  make  my  bed  in 
hell,  (Sheol,)  behold  thou  art  there,"  &ic.  Admit- 
ting, for  arguuient's  sake,  that  hell  is  a  j)lace  of  end- 
less punishment,  how  could  the  wicked,  even  there,  be 
out  of  God's  presence  ?  Yet  in  this  passage  the  per- 
sons are  said  to  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruc- 
tion from  the  presence  of  the  Lord.  Again  ;  I  find 
the  phrase  presence  of  the  Lord  refers  to  heaven,  or 
the  dwelling-place  .of  the  iMost  High.  Christ  is  said 
to  have  gone  'Mnto  heaven,  now  to  appear  z/i  the  pre- 
sence of  God  for  us,"  Heb.  ix.  24.  And  it  is  said, 
Luke  i.  19,  "I  am  Gabriel,  that  stand  in  the  presence 
oj  God.^''  But  how  could  the  wicked  be  punished 
with  everlasting  destruction  from  God's  presence  in 
this  sense  ?  For  surely  no  one  will  say  that  they  ever 
were  in  heaven,  and  like  Gabriel,  stood  in  the  presence 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  329 

of  God.  But  again,  the  phrase /ace  of  God,  or  p7-e- 
sence  of  the  Loi^d,  refers  to  some  places  where  people 
met  to  worship  him,  and  where  he  met  with  and  mani- 
fested himself  to  them.  Thus  Jacob,  at  Penuel,  Gen. 
xxxii.  30,  says,  "  I  have  seen  God  face  to  face,  and 
my  life  is  preserved,"  See  Job  i.  6 — 12,  and  ii.  1 — 7, 
for  examples  of  the  same  phrase,  preser/ce  of  the  Lo7'd. 
Unless  there  was  some  particular  place  where  God 
was  manifested  in  the  days  of  Gain,  how  could  it  be 
said,  "  and  Cain  went  out  Jrom  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  dwelt  in  the  land  of  Nod  (or  vagabond,  as 
in  the  margin)  in  the  east  of  Eden  :"  Gen.  iv.  16,  and 
verse  14,  it  is  added  by  Cain,  "  behold  thou  hast  driven 
me  out  this  day  from  the  face  of  the  earth  :  and  from 
thy  face  shall  I  be  hid." 

It  is  very  evident,  that  the  presence  of  the  Loj^d\v?.s 
in  a  peculiar  manner  among  the  children  of  Israel. — 
See  Exod.  xxxiii.  14 — 17,  compare  Isai.  Ixiii.  9,  and 
Psalm  li.  11.  The  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  and 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  were  considered  by  the  Jews 
as  the  peculiar  residence  of  Jehovah.  There  he  abode, 
and  there  they  performed  all  their  religious  services  to 
him.  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  the  Jews  ;  their  land 
his  land,  and  the  temple  there  was  considered  the 
place  of  his  immediate  presence.  As  this  has  an  im- 
portant bearing  on  the  passage  before  us,  we  must 
give  it  a  httle  more  of  our  attention.  In  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem,  God  is  said  to  dwell  between  the  cheru- 
bim, Psalm  Ixxx.  The  show  bread  placed  there,  is 
called  "the  loaves  of  the  presence  or  faces."  And 
viewed  in  this  light,  the  following  texts  have  great 
beauty  and  force.  "  Let  us  come  before  his  presence 
with  thanksgiving,  and  make  a  joyful  noise  unto  him 
with  psalms.  Serve  the  Lord  with  gladness,  come  be- 
fore his  presence  with  singing.      Glory  and  honor  are 


330  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

in  his  presence ;  strength  and  gladness  are  in  his 
place."  Psalm  xcv.  2,  and  c.  2 ;  1  Chron.  xvi.  27. 
But  that  the  land  of  Judea,  and  particularly  the  tem- 
ple, was  considered  by  the  Jews  as  the  place  of  God's 
peculiar  presence,  is  manifest  from  Jonah  i.  3.  ''But 
Jonah  rose  up  to  flee  into  Tarshish,  from  the  pi-esence 
of  the  Lord."  Where  he  believed  the  Lord's  presence 
tp  be,  we  learn  from  chapter  ii.  4.  "  I  am  cast  out  of 
thy  sight  ;  but  I  will  look  again  toward  thy  holy  tem- 
ple." In  short,  whether  the  Jews  were  in  their  own 
land,  or  in  captivity,  when  they  prayed  or  performed 
acts  of  worship  to  God,  their  thoughts  and  their  faces 
were  directed  towards  their  temple  at  Jerusalem. — 
See  in  proof  of  this,  Dan.  vi.  10;  1  Kings  viii.  ; 
Psalm  V.  7. 

But  there  are  still  some  passages  which  deserve  our 
particular  notice,  because  they  clearly  decide  what  is 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  presence  of  the  Lord,  in 
the  passage  before  us.  The  first  is,  2  Kings  xiii.  23. 
^•'  And  the  Lord  was  gracious  unto  them,  and  had  com- 
passion on  them;  because  of  his  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  would  not  destroy  them, 
neither  cast  them  from  his  presence  as  yet.''  This  was 
spoken  of  the  Jews  ;  and  just  notice,  that  God  speaks 
of  destroying  them,  and  casting  thera  from  his  pre- 
sence. What  he  here  says,  that  as  yet  he  would  not 
do  to  this  people,  in  the  following  passage  we  find  tliat 
he  did  do.  2  Kins^s  xxiv.  20,  "  For  throuiih  the  an- 
ger  of  the  Lord,  it  came  to  pass  in  Jerusrlem  and  Ju- 
dah  until  he  had  cast  them  out  from  his  presence,  that 
Zedekiah  rebelled  against  the  king  of  Babylon." — 
The  same  is  repeated,  Jer.  Hi.  3,  which  I  need  not 
transcribe.  God's  presence  was  enjoyed  by  the  Jews 
in  Judea,  and  in  their  temple  service.  To  be  cast  out 
oi  God's  presence,  is  to  be  banished  from  Judea  into 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  331 

captivity,  and  from  all  tlie  privileges  which  the  Jews  en- 
joyed in  their  land,  and  temple  worship.  This  was  the 
same  as  destroying  them.  They  were  thus  destroyed, 
or  cast  out  of  God's  presence,  for  seventy  years  in 
their  captivity  at  Babylon.  But  they  were  brought 
back  from  this  captivity,  and  again  enjoyed  God's  pre 
sence  in  their  own  land.  At  the  lime  Paul  wrote  the 
words  before  us,  the  time  was  drawing  near  when  they 
were  to  be  again  cast  out  of  God's  presence,  and  dis- 
persed among  all  nations.  Of  the  Jews  Paul  spoke. 
He  adopts  the  very  language  of  the  above  passages, 
used  in  speaking. of  their  former  captivity,  to  describe 
the  judgments  of  God  which  awaited-  them  in  their  be- 
ing cast  out  of  their  land,  their  city  and  temple  de- 
stroyed, and  they  destroyed  with  an  everlasting  de- 
struction from  the  presence  of  the  Lord.  The  Jews 
now,  are  just  as  certainly  destroyed  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord,  as  they  were  during  their  seventy  years 
captivity.  How  then  can  any  man  affirm  that  Paul, 
in  this  passage,  by  destruction  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord,  meant  either  anniliilation  or  eternal  misery  ? 
If  the  Scriptures  are  allowed  to  interpret  themselves, 
Paul  only  describes  the  temporal  destruction  and  ban- 
ishment of  the  Jews,  and  in  the  very  language  by 
which  the  prophets  had  described  their  former  punish- 
ments. It  is  added  by  the  apostle,  ■'  and  from  the 
glory  of  his  power,"  or  as  some  render  it,  "  his 
glorious  power."  Should  this  be  understood  of  Je- 
hovah, the  God  of  Israel,  it  is  certain  his  glorious 
power  was  displayed  among  the  Jews.  Should  it  be 
understood  of  Christ,  it  agrees  v/ith  what  is  said  of 
him  ;  for  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  he  is  said  to 
have  come  in  the  glory  of  his  father  ;  and  he  was  then 
to  be  seen  coming  with  powder  and  great  glory,  JMatt. 
xvi.  2Tj  and  xxiv.  30.     But  it  will  be  said,  How  is 


332  AN    INQ,UIRY PART   II, 

this  destruction  of  the  Jews  called  an  everlasting  de- 
struction from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  if  it  refers 
merely  to  temporal  calamities?     I  shall  now, 

2d.  Notice  the  duration  of  their  punishment.  It 
is  the  word  everlasting,  which  is  here,  and  in  other 
places,  applied  to  punishment,  which  leads  many  good 
people  to  conclude,  that  it  is  in  another  wotld,  and  is 
of  endless  duration.  But  so  far  from  this  being  true, 
this  very  application  of  the  word  everlasting,  is  a 
strong  confirming  circumstance  in  proof  of  the  views 
advanced  ;  for,  first,  it  has  been  shown  at  lenijth,  that 
olim,  aion,  and  aionios,  are  rendered  everlasting,  and 
in  a  great  many  instances  at  least,  are  used  to  express 
a  limited  duration  of  time.  But,  second,  these  words 
are  rendered  everlasting,  and  applied  to  the  very  tem- 
poral punishment  which  the  Jews  have  endured  for 
eighteen  hundred  years,  and  are  still  enduring.  For 
example,  it  is  said,  Jer.  xxiii.  39,  40.  "  Therefore, 
behold,  I,  even  I,  will  utterly  forget  you,  and  I  Avill 
forsake  you,  and  the  city  that  I  gave  you  and  your 
fathers,  and  cast  you  out  of  my  jjrcsence  :  and  I  ivill 
bring  an  everlasting  reproach  upon  you,  and  a  per- 
petual  shame,  which  shall  not  be  Jorgotteny  See  my 
Inquiiy  into  the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  &-c.,  on  this  pas- 
sage. Compare  also  Deut.  xxviii.  37,  and  xxxi.  17, 
18  ;  Hosea  ix.  17  ;  Jer.  xx.  1  1,  and  xxiv.  9.  What 
only  remains  to  be  accounted  for  is,  why  is  this  tem- 
poral punishment  of  the  Jews  called  everlasting,  both 
by  the  prophet,  and  by  Paul  in  this  passage  ?  This 
we  think  is  easily  and  rationally  accounted  for.  Paul 
.  was  a  Jew,  and  was  speaking  of  Jews  and  their  pun- 
ishment. What  could  be  more  proper,  than  to  speak 
of  their  punishment  in  the  language  in  which  it  was 
described  by  their  own  prophets,  as  a  destruction,  and 
an   everlasting   destruction  from   the  presence  of  the 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  333 

Lord  ?  The  Jews  were  familiar  with  the  language  of 
their  Scriptures  ;  but  what  Jew  ever  understood,  that 
to  be  cast  out  of  God's  presence,  was  to  be  cast  into 
misery  in  a  future  state ;  or,  that  the  word  everlasting, 
applied  to  it,  expressed  its  endless  duration  ?  No  man, 
we  think,  will  assert  this.  It  is  of  no  consequence 
how  Christians  have  understood  either  the  phrase,  pre- 
sence of  the  Lord,  or  the  word  everlasting,  for  ages 
past,  but  the  question  is — How  did  the  Jews  under- 
stand this  language  ?  In  the  Jewish  use  of  the  term 
everlasting,  their  present  punishment  is  called  ever- 
lasting with  stricter  propriety  of  language,  than  many 
other  things  to  which  they  were  accustomed  to  apply 
it.  JNo  punishment  they  ever  suffered  before  is  called 
everlasting,  which  might  have  been  done  to  their 
seventy  years  captivity,  for  this  term,  we  have  seen, 
expresses  the  duration  of  a  man's  life.  Should  the 
present  punishment  of  the  Jews,  then,  end  to-morrow, 
its  continuance  for  eighteen  hundred  years  might  be 
called  everlasting.  But  how  long  it  is  yet  to  con- 
tinue, God  only  knows.  For  this  length  of  time  they 
have  been  cast  out  of  their  land,  and  have  not  enjoyed 
God's  presence.  The  Christian  church  is  God's  house 
now,  but  how  few  Jews  have  come  to  enjoy  his  pre- 
sence here,  facts  show.  AH  the  exertions  made  to 
convert  them  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  is  little  else  than 
lost  labor.  The  veil  is  on  their  hearts,  and  all  at- 
tempts to  remove  it  have  as  yet  proved  abortive. — 
They  are  an  everlasting  reproach,  and  a  perpetual 
shame  among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  What  na- 
tion ever  suffered  so  long  and  severe  a  destruction  as 
they  have  done,  yet  remain  a  distinct  and  numerous 
people  ?  And  what  nation  ever  enjoyed  such  privi- 
leges, and  yet  remain  so  long  a  blinded  and  unbeliev- 
ing people  ?  But  their  punishment  is  to  end  ;  for  as 
22 


334  AN    INQUIRY PART    H. 

certainly  as  God  has  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  so 
he  is  to  have  mercy  upon  all.  Their  everlasting  de- 
struction is  not  of  endless  duration. 

1st.  Is  it  objected — "How  could  the  Jews,  who 
persecuted  Christians  at  Thessalonica,  suffer  this  pun- 
ishment, seeing  they  lived  so  far  distant  from  Jerusa- 
lem ?"  Answer :  it  could  have  made  no  difference  in 
the  case,  had  they  lived  at  the  poles  ;  for  at  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  the  Jews  were  banished  Judea, 
and  have  not  been  allowed  to  return  to  this  day.  Even 
the  few  Jews  in  Judea  now,  do  not  enjoy  the  presence 
of  the  Lord.  They  live  there  without  a  temple,  an 
altar,  or  a  sacrifice,  and  mourn  over  the  long  desola- 
tions of  their  city  and  temple  ;  dragging  out  a  misera- 
ble existence  in  hopeless  expectation  that  their  Mes- 
siah is  yet  to  come.  But  many  of  the  foreign  Jews 
suffered  at  tlie  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple,  for 
it  was  at  the  feast  of  the  passover,  when  they  were' 
generally  assembled  there,  that  Titus  surrounded  the 
city  and  they  could  not  escape. 

;2d.  Is  it  objected — ^'The  presence  of  the  Lord 
means  his  gracious  presence  at  the  day  of  judgment, 
and  being  destroyed  from  his  presence,  being  banished 
to  hell  at  this  period  ?"  Answer:  let  this  be  proved, 
for  assertions  prove  nothing.  Not  a  word  is  said  in 
the  whole  context  of  the  passage,  about  a  dayofjudg- 
ment,  or  God's  gracious  yresence.  Such  gratuitous  as- 
sertions do  not  deserve  notice,  and  especially  in  view 
of  the  illustrations  of  this  expression  given  from  the 
Scriptures. 

3d.  Is  it  objected—"  Your  views  of  this  passage  do 
not  agree  with  the  coming  of  Christ  mentioned  chap- 
ter ii.  1,  of  this  epistle ;  for  it  is  his  coming  at  the  day 
of  judgment,  and  you  have  interpreted  his  coming,  in 
chapter  i.,  of  his  coming  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 


AN    INQUIKY PART    H,  335 

lem  ?"  Answer  :  whoever  will  consult  Whiiby,  may- 
see  that  he  interprets  Christ's  corning,  in  chapter  i.,  of 
the  day  of  judgment,  but  passes  it  very  slightly  ;  but 
he  enters  at  large  into  the  proof,  that  Christ's  coming, 
chapter  ii.  refers  to  his  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem. 
Whitby  then  shows,  that  chapter  ii.  is  in  accordance 
with  my  views  of  chapter  i.  But  whoever  wishes  to 
see  these  things  treated  more  at  large;  must  consult 
the  Magazine  referred  to  above, 

JVlatt.  xviii.  8.  The  "  everlasting  fire"  here  menr 
tioned,  is  the  same  as  hell  fire,  verse  9,  for  they  are 
used  as  convertible  expressions ;  and  the  same  as  ever^ 
lasting  fire,  Matt.  xxv.  41,  See  Inquiry  into  the  words 
Sheol,  Hades,  &jc.,  for  an  illustration  of  this  text,  and 
which  has  been  also  noticed  in  the  present  Inquiry.  It 
requires  no  further  attention. 

Jude  7.  "  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the 
cities  about  tliem,  in  like  manner,  giving  themselves 
over  to  fornication,  and  going  after  strange  flesh,  are 
set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire."  That  the  suffering  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire  here,  has  no  reference  to  punishment  in  a 
future  state  appears  to  me  evident  from  the  fpllpwing 
considerations  : 

1st.  From  comparing  2  Peter  ii.  6,  where  nothing 
is  said  about  eternal  fire,  but  only  that  the  cities  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  with  the  people  together,  are 
said  to  be  condemned  with  an  overthrow,  making 
them  an  ensample  unto  those  that  after  should  live 
ungodly.  Had  the  people  gone  to  endless  misery, 
would  Peter  have  omitted  this  important  part,  and 
mentioned  only  the  destruction  of  the  cities  with  the 
loss  of  their  lives,  as  an  example  to  ungodly  men  ? — , 
We  cannot  very  readily  admit  this. 

2d.  By  comparing  verses  5,  6,  7,  together,  Jude 
sayS;  that  the  people  to  wbpm  he  wrote  kt^ew  that 


336  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

Sodom  and  Gomorrah  suffered  the  vengeance  of  eter- 
nal fire.  But  I  ask  how  they  could  know  that  they 
suffered  in  a  future  state  of  existence  ?  For  the  his- 
tory of  the  event,  nor  any  other  part  of  Scripture 
could  give  them  such  information.  Compare  Zeph. 
ii,  9.  But  they  could  know,  that  the  people  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  suffered  temporal  misery,  for  this  is 
plainly  made  known. 

3d.  Jude  says  they  were  set  forth  for  an  example, 
suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire.  But  how 
could  they  be  an  example  if  this  refers  to  punishment 
in  a  future  state?  For  an  example  to  others  must  be 
visible  to  be  of  any  benefit  to  them.  Their  destruc- 
tion with  the  cities,  are  an  example,  for  these  are  facts 
allowed  by  sacred  and  profane  writers,  Jewish  and 
heathen.  See  Philo,  Josephus,  the  Apocryphal  wri- 
ters, and  others,  who  all  mention  those  events.  It  is 
allowed  by  many  intelligent  men,  that  nothing  is  said 
in  the  Old  Testament  about  eternal  punishment.  The 
cities  of  the  plain  burnt  for  many  ages,  which  suffi- 
ciently entitled  this  fire  to  be  called  "the  vengeance 
of  eternal  fire."  This  fire  might  be  called  eternal,  in 
the  same  or  similar  sense,  as  the  desolation  of  certain 
cities  and  places  were  to  be  perpetual  or  everlasting. 
See,  among  others,  the  following  places :  Ezek.  xxvi. 
20,  21  ;  XXXV.  9;  Jer.  xviii.  15,  16;  xxiii,  40,  and 
li.  39.  This  has  been  shown  abov^e.  I  may  add, 
that  yuros  aioniou  might  be  rendered  "  of  the  fire  of 
the  age."  The  apostle  then  says,  that  they  suffered 
the  vengeance  of  the  fire,  or  punishment  of  the  age ; 
fire  being  a  figure  for  punishment.  Or  simply,  they 
suffered  the  vengeance  of  the  fire  of  old. 

4th.  Whitby  and  others,  who  believed  the  devil  to 
be  a  real  being,  maintain,  that  he  is  not  suffering,  nor 
will  suffer  the  torments  of  hell  until  after  the  day  of 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II.  337 

judgment.  Why  then  send  the  Sodomites  there  be- 
fore him  ?  God  must  be  very  merciful  to  the  devil,  to 
excuse  him  so  long  a  time  from  eternal  misery,  yet 
send  all  the  Sodomites  there  when  he  burnt  up  their 
city.  But  we  think  neither  the  doctrine  concerning 
the  devil,  nor  eternal  misery,  have  been  properly  ex- 
amined, or  such  opinions  would  all  be  discarded. 

Jude  13.  "  Raging  waves  of  the  sea,  foaming  out 
their  own  shame ;  wandering  stars,  to  whom  is  reserved 
the  blackness  of  darkness  forever."  Peter  states,  for 
substance,  the  same,  second  epistle,  ii.  17,  which  has 
been  noticed  in  my  answer  to  Mr.  Sabine,  to  which  I 
refer  the  reader.  There  it  has  been  shown  that  the 
apostle  referred  to  the  Jews,  and  the  darkness  they  are 
now  in  ;  and  that  it  may  be  said  to  be  forever,  in  the 
Jewish  usage  of  this  expression.  That  their  present 
punishment  is  called  everlasting,  we  think  has  been 
proved  from  several  texts  above. 

Mark  iii.  29,  has  been  considered  in  connexion  with 
Matt,  xii.  31,  32,  above,  and  requires  no  further  no- 
tice. 

Heb.  vi.  2.  "Of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of 
laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and  of  eternal  judgment."  It  requires  no  proof,  that 
Paul  was  addressing  himself  to  believing  Hebrews. — 
At  verse  11,  of  chapter  v.,  he  said,  that  he  had  many 
things  to  say  to  them  concerning  Melchisedec,  hard  to 
be  uttered,  or  not  easily  understood  by  them,  because 
they  were  dull  of  hearing,  or  slow  in  learning.  Ac- 
cording, in  verses  12 — 14,  he  reproved  them  thus: — 
"  For  when  for  the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye 
have  need  that  one  teach  you  again  which  be  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  are  become  such 
as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of  strong  meat.  For 
every  one  that  useth  milk  is  unskilful  in  the  word  of 


858  AN   It^qUlRY f  ART    liv 

righteousness:  for  he  is  a  babe.  But  strong  meat  be- 
longeth  to  them  that  are  of  lull  age,  even  those  who 
by  reason  of  use  have  their  senses  exercised  to  discern 
both  good  and  evil."  By  "  the  oracles  of  God,"  Paul 
evidently  referred  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
particularly  the  law  given  at  Sinai.  See  Acts  vii.  38, 
and  Rom.  iii.  2.  He  could  nt)t  refer  to  the  New^  Tes- 
tament Scriptures,  for,  at  the  time  he  wrote,  they  Avere 
not  all  written  ;  nor  does  it  appear  that  this  appella- 
tion is  ever  applied  to  them.  By  \he  first  principhs, 
must  be  meant,  some  things  in  the  Old  Testament,  for 
they  are  said  to  be  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles 
f)f  Ood.  This  is  evident  from  the  word  stoiheia,  ren- 
dered, first  principles,  Gal.  iv.  3,  9,  where,  instead  of 
elements  in  th«  text,  our  translators  have  put  rudiments 
in  the  margin.  In  Col.  ii.  8,  20,  they  have  rendered 
this  same  word  rudiments,  and  have  put  e/ewen^^  in  the 
margin.  The  same  word  is  rendered  elements,^  Peter 
Hi.  10,  12,  which  we  think  could  be  shown,  refers  to 
thitigs  belonging  to  the  Jewish  dispensation.  It  is  ap- 
parent from  tliese  texts  that  it  signifies  the  elements, 
rudiments,  or  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  or 
things  which  belonged  to  the  Jewish  dispensation. — 
These  were  suited  to  the  world,  while  in  a  state  of 
childhood  ;  but  after  Christ  had  come,  ought  to  have 
been  laid  aside.  But  many  Jewish  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity turned  back  again  to  these  week  and  beggarly 
elements,  whereunto  they  deserved  again  to  be  in 
bondaij;e.  This  was  the  case  with  the  believin'jj  He- 
brews  :  for  instead  of  being  in  advance  of  the  Gen- 
tile converts,  having  had  the  rudiments  in  their  hands 
from  their  childhood,  they  needed  even  to  be  taught 
ihem  again.  They  were  babes,  preferring  milk  to 
strong  meat,  or  those  rudiments,  to  being  skilful  in  the 
word  of  righteousness,  and  having  their  senses  exer- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  339 

clsed  to  discern  both  good  and  evil.  See  chapter  v. 
12 — 14,  and  compare  Gal.  iv.  1 — 4. 

Let  us  now  notice  the  first  two  verses  of  chapter  vi. 
''  Therefore,  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection."  In  the  margin 
it  is,  "  therefore,  leaving  the  ivord  of  the  beginning  of 
Christ,"  which  evidently  refers  to  the  first  principles  of 
the  oracles  of  God,  chapter  v.  12,  the  word  therefore 
shows  that  the  apostle  drew  his  inference  from  what  he 
had  just  stated,  chapter  v.  12 — 14.  It  could  not  re^ 
fer  to  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ,  taught  by 
him  or  his  apostles,  for  surely  Paul  would  not  com- 
mand them  to  leave  what  Christians  are  commanded 
to  hold  fast  and  continue  in.  See  1  John  ii.  24;  1 
Cor.  XV.  1—4..  Nor,  was  this  the  beginning  of  the 
word  of  Christ,  unless  we  affirm  that  nothing  is  said  of 
Christ  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  to  him  gave  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets  witness.  Besides,  could  the 
apostle  mean  to  tell  the  Hebrews,  that  they  could  not 
go  on  unto  perfection  unless  they  left  the  beginning  of* 
the  word  of  Christ?  This,  we  think,  is  impossible. — 
But,  by  leaving  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of 
God  as  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  they  could  only- 
go  on  to  perfection,  for  it  was  by  adhering  to  those  ru- 
diments, after  Christ  had  come,  that  their  progress  in 
knowledge  had  been  retarded.  Instead  of  leaving 
them,  they  began  to  lay  them  again  as  a  foundation, 
or,  returned  to  those  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  de- 
serving again  to  be  in  bondage  to  them.  Is  it  asked, 
How  can  the  different  articles  here  specified,  and  which 
they  are  desired  not  to  lay  again  as  a  foundation,  be 
the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  as  taught  in 
the  Old  Testament  ?  I  shall  now  attempt  to  show 
this,  by  briefly  noticing  those  articles. 

1st.  "  Not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repent 


340  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

ance  from  dead  worJcsy  That  repentance  was  re 
quired  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  needs  no 
proof,  and  therefore  this  part  occasions  no  difficuhy. — 
Probably  a  reference  is  here  made  to  that  which  was 
enjoined  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  Lev.  xvi.  21, 
22,  29,  30. 

2d.  '^And  of  faith  towards  God^  But  why  not 
faith  towards  Christ,  if  the  apostle  did  not  refer  to  the 
principles  of  the  Old  Testament?  It  is  well  known 
that  the  faith  of  persons  during  that  dispensation  chief- 
ly respected  God.  See  Heb.xi.  6  ;  Johnxiv.  1.  This 
part  can  occasion  no  difficulty. 

3d.  ^^  Of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms.''^  Christian  bap- 
tism is  always  spoken  of  in  the  singular.  Bui,  when 
the  Jewish  baptisms  or  washings  are  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  they  are  spoken  of,  as  here,  in  the 
plural  number.  See  as  examples,  (in  the  Greek,) 
Mark  vii.  4,  8.  And  Paul,  in  this  very  epistle,  chap- 
ter ix.  10,  calls  them  divers  baptisms.  This  so  plain- 
ly belongs  to  the  Old  Testament,  that  we  may 
conclude  all  the  other  things  refer  to  the  same  dispen- 
sation. 

4th.  ^^And  of  laying  on  of  handsT  This  article 
can  occasion  no  difficulty,  for  it  is  well  known  that 
laying  on  of  hands  was  common  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  and  that  on  various  occasions.  It  is 
no  objection  to  my  view,  that  this  and  some  of  the 
other  things  were  also  done  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation. 

5th.  "O/*  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.^^  This  is 
commonly  understood  of  the  general  resurrection. — 
But  why  should  it  ?  If  the  preceding  articles  refer  to 
things  under  the  old  dispensation,  why  not  this  and  the 
article  which  follows  ?  Then,  certain  persons  were 
raised  from  the  dead,  and  that   the  apostle  refers  to 


AN    INQUIRY PART    11.  341 

them  in  chapter  xi.  35,  is  indisputable.  Elijah  raised 
the  widow's  son  of  Zarephath,  1  Kings  xvii.  20 — 24. 
Elisha  raised  the  Shunamite's  son,  2  Kings  iv.  32 — 36. 
These  with  other  instances  of  the  power  of  God,  were 
a  great  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  Judaism,  and  con- 
firmed the  faith  of  believers  in  it ;  yea,  exhibited  the 
excellency  of  faith  in  God  during  that  dispensation. — 
Compare  Heb.  xi.  35,  with  1  Kings  xvii.  24.  And 
whatever  promoted  their  faith  toward  God,  led  to  re- 
pentance from  dead  works.  But,  that  the  term  anas- 
tasis,  rendered  resurrection,  was  used  among  the  Jews 
to  express  a  revival  in  various  ways,  is  shown  by  Dr. 
Campbell,  previously  quoted.  The  restoration  of 
Israel  is  described  as  raising  dead  dry  bones  to  life, 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  1 — 14.  And  with  equal  propriety 
might  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  bondage  of 
Pharaoh  be  called  a  resurrection  from  the  dead. — 
Hence  they  said  to  Moses,  Exod.  xiv.  11,  "because 
there  were  no  graves  in  Egypt  hast  thou  taken  us 
away  to  die  in  the  wilderness  ?"  That  by  the  dead, 
in  Scripture  we  are  sometimes  to  understand  not  those 
actually  dead,  but  only  being  in  danger  of  it.  And  a 
deliverance  out  of  such  a  state,  a  resurrection,  is  al- 
lowed. See,  among  other  texts,  the  following :  Gene- 
sis XX.  3  ;  2  Sam.  xix.  28  ;  2  Cor.  i.  8 — 10  ;  Rom. 
xi.  15;  John  v.  28,  29. 

6th.  '^And  of  eternal  judgment  J  ^  That  the  term 
judgment  is  used  to  express  temporal  judgment  in 
Scripture  needs  no  proof.  That  the  ancient  Jewish 
religion  was  established  by  great  temporal  judgments 
is  indisputable,  as  the  five  books  of  Moses  show.  And 
that  the  judgment  of  God  on  the  Egyptians,  when  Is- 
rael were  delivered  from  their  bondage,  is  called  eter- 
nal ov  forever,  is  expressly  declared.  Hence  it  is  said, 
Exod.  xiv.  13,  *'  For  the  Egyptians  whom  ye  have 


342  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

seen  to-day,  ye  shall  see  them  again  no  more /o?*euer." 
See  above,  on  the  word  olim,  as  used  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Accordingly  the  phrase  krimatos  aioniou, 
eternal  judgment,  may  be  rendered,  of  the  judgment 
of  the  age,  or,  the  judgment  of  old.  In  this  sense, 
we  have  seen  olim,  aion,  and  oionios  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, I  may  just  add,  that  the  context  seems  to  con- 
firm the  view  given  of  this  passage.  In  verse  3,  it  is 
said,  "  and  this  ivill  we  do  if  God  permit.''  Do  what  ? 
Let  it  be  asked.  Answer:  "  go  on  unto  perfection," 
as  stated  verse  1,  If  the  first  principles,  spoken  of 
were  such  as  belonged  to  the  Old  Testament,  it  was 
altogether  unnecessary  for  Paul  to  teach  them,  for  this 
would  be  laying  them  again  as  a  foundation.  But  it 
was  highly  proper  for  him  to  go  on  to  teach  what 
would  render  them  perfect  or  full  grown  men,  seeing 
they  were  so  deficient  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Je- 
sus. This  in  fact  he  did  in  this  very  epistle,  for  a 
great  part  is  spent  in  pointing  out  to  them  the  reality 
of  that,  of  which  the  Jewish  law  was  but  a  shadow. 
But  what  was  to  prevent  his  doing  this,  for  he  says, 
"  this  will  we  do  if  God  permit,"  This,  Paul  purposed 
to  do  if  God  gave  him  opportunity,  and  if  his  purpose 
and  labors  were  not  frustrated,  by  their  total  apostacy 
from  the  faith  before  his  letter  came  to  them.  Hence 
his  fears  about  this  in  verses  4 — 9.  See  also  chapter 
X.  23—39. 

Rev.  xiv.  11.  "  And  the  smoke  of  their  torment  as- 
cendeth  up  forever  and  ever,  and  they  have  no  rest 
day  nor  night."  And  xix.  3,  "And  again  they  said, 
Alleluia,  and  her  smoke  rose  up  forever  and  ever." — 
And  XX.  10,  "And  the  devil  that  deceived  them  was 
cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  where  the  beast 
and  the  false  prophet  are,  and  shall  be  tormented  day 
and  night  forever  and  ever."     It  would  be  idle  to  show 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  343 

that  these  passages  have  no  respect  to  punishment  in 
another  state  of  existence.  No  well  informed  man 
would  urge  them  as  proof  of  such  a  doctrine  ;  for  it  is 
plain,  that  the  punishments  were  in  this  world,  where 
the  time  is  measured  hy  day  and  night. 

Such  are  all  the  texts  in  the  Bible,  where  olim,  aion, 
and  aionios  are  used,  in  whatever  way  rendered  by  our 
translators.  Not  one  text  has  been  omitted  to  our 
knowledge,  and  the  reader  having  the  whole  ground 
before  him,  may  examine  it  for  himself.  The  texts  on 
which  dependence  is  placed,  proving  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment,  we  have  fully  considered,  and  to 
spend  time  with  others  is  unnecessary. 


SECTION  VIII. 

CONCLUDING  REMARKS  ON  OLIM,  AND  AION,  AND  ATONIOS, 
RENDERED  EVERLASTING,  FOREVER,  &€.  THROUGH- 
OUT THE  BIBLE,  WHETHER  APPLIED  TO  GOD,  TO 
LIFE,  OR  PUNISHMENT. 

If  these  terms  are  ever  used  to  express  endless  du- 
ration, all  seem  to  be  agreed  that  they  express  the 
endless  duration, 

]st.  Of  God,  Indeed,  it  is  from  their  being  applied 
to  him,  w^ho  is  without  beginning  or  end,  that  it  is  con- 
cluded they  express  endless  duration  when  applied  to 
other  things.  This  point,  then,  requires  to  be  exa- 
mined with  modesty  and  care.  It  would  ill  become 
me,  to  speak  with  dogmatical  confidence  on  such  a 


344  AN    INQ,UIRY PART    II. 

subject.  All  I  claim  is,  that  what  has  occurred  to  me 
be  considered  impartially,  and  it  may  lead  to  a  more 
complete  investigation  of  the  subject.  There  is  no 
dispute,  nor  can  there  be  any,  about  the  endless  ex- 
istence of  Jehovah.  The  only  point  about  which  a 
question  arises,  is,  are  these  terujs  intended  to  express 
his  endless  duration  when  so  appHed?  If  they  do,  it 
must,  I  think,  be  allowed,  that  it  is  the  subject  to  which 
they  are  applied  which  gives  them  this  extent  of  signi- 
fication ;  and  it  is  certain  beyond  a  doubt,  that  they 
are  often  used  in  Scripture  to  express  a  limited  dura- 
tion ;  yea,  sometimes  a  short  period,  such  as  a  person's 
life  time.  Besides,  does  it  follow,  that  because  God 
is  infinite,  that  words  must  derive  an  infinite  significa- 
tion when  applied  to  him?  If  they  do,  w^hy  confine 
it  to  the  words  before  us  ?  Why  not  also  say,  that 
when  the  term  good  is  applied  to  God,  it  must  always 
mean  an  infinite  degree  of  goodness?  which,  if  true, 
puts  an  end  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery,  for  it  is 
expressly  said,  "  the  Lord  is  good  unto  all."  So  in 
regard  to  other  terms  being  applied  to  him.  But  what 
leads  me  to  think  that  olim,  aion,  and  oionios,  used  to 
express  duration  when  applied  to  the  divine  being, 
were  not  intended  to  designate  his  endless  duration, 
are  the  followinor  thinsjs  : 

1st.  From  the  original  native  sense  of  these  terms. 
Lexicon  writers  seem  to  be  agreed,  that  they  signify 
eternity,  not  from  their  natural  native  sense,  but  from 
the  subjects  to  which  they  are  applied,  and  the  sense 
of  certain  passages  requiring  such  an  application  of 
them.  They  all  allow,  that  they  not  only  signify 
limited  duration,  but  are  used  to  express  this  in  Scrip- 
ture. I  would  therefore  query,  whether  we  ought  to 
take  it  for  granted,  that  certain  passages  in  which  such 
words  are  used,  require  us  to  understand  them  as  ex- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  345 

pressing  endless  duration  ?  May  not  these  passages 
be  misunderstood  ?  And,  when  duly  considered,  we 
may  see  that  they  do  not  require  such  a  sense  affixed 
to  these  terms.  Is  it  correct  reasoning  to  infer,  that 
terms  expressing  limited  duration,  cannot  be  applied  to 
God  without  changing  their  meaning  from  a  limited  to 
an  infinite  signification  ?  Why  may  not  these  terms, 
which  are  certainly  used  to  express  all  the  ages  of  the 
world  from  its  beginninor  to  its  end,  be  also  used  when 
applied  to  God,  to  express,  not  his  endless  duration, 
but  the  period  of  his  dispensations  and  dealings  with 
men  through  Jesus  Christ,  throughout  all  the  genera- 
tions of  it.  For  example,  when  God  is  called  "  the 
king  eternal,"  we  have  seen  above,  by  a  quotation 
from  Macknight,  that  it  simply  signifies  king  of  the 
ages,  or  of  all  the  ages  or  dispensations  of  this  world. 

2d.  Supposing  then  these  terms,  when  applied  to 
God,  do  not  express  his  endless  duration,  but  all  the 
period  of  his  dispensations  with  men  in  this  world,  there 
is  a  propriety  and  congruity  in  all  their  applications 
throughout  the  Scriptures.  They  are  then  used  to  ex- 
press a  longer  or  shorter  period,  as  the  subject  of  the 
writer  required.  They  express  the  period  of  a  man's 
life-time,  the  duration  of  any  one  of  the  dispensations 
under  which  men  have  been  placed,  or  all  the  ages  of 
the  world  from  its  beginning  to  its  end.  Accordingly 
these  terms  are  used  in  a  variety  of  ways  to  express 
limited  duration,  as  is  universally  allowed.  To  under- 
stand them  as  expressing  endless  duration  would  make 
the  inspired  writers  in  many  instances  speak  the  most 
palpable  absurdities  and  contradictions. 

3d.  If  these  terms,  when  applied  to  God,  are  used 
to  express  his  endless  existence,  I  beg  leave  to  ask,  why 
qualifying  explanatory  phrases  are  added  by  the  sacred 
writers,  as  is  so  frequently  done  ?     I  shall  explain  my- 


346  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

self  about  this.  For  example,  when  olim  is  used  to 
express  time  past,  it  is  not  only  rendered  of  old,  the 
days  of  old,  ancient,  ancient  years,  former  years,  but  is 
explained  to  mean  many  generations,  the  years  of 
many  generations,  and  from  the  beginning.  Again, 
when  it  is  used  to  express  future  time,  we  have  also 
the  following  explanatory  phrases  given  us  concerning 
it:  all  thy  days,  throughout  your  generations,  through- 
out all  generations,  to  all  generations,  from  generation 
to  generation,  many  generations,  every  generation,  the 
tenth  generation,  and  a  thousand  generations.  Besides, 
it  is  also  limited  or  qualified  by  the  duration  of  the  sun, 
moon,  host  of  heaven,  and  days  of  heaven.  Had  this 
word  signified  endless  duration,  all  must  have  seen  the 
propriety  of  adding  such  explanations  when  it  w^as  used 
to  express  a  limited  duration,  for  this  was  necessary  to 
prevent  misunderstanding.  But  what  need  was  there 
to  add  the  same  or  similar  explanations  when  this  term 
is  applied  to  God  ?  Why  not  let  it  have  its  full  un- 
qualified meaning,  if  it  really  signified  endless  dura- 
tion ?  But  the  sacred  writers  make  no  distinction,  (ot 
they  add  the  same  restricting,  qualifying  expressions, 
when  it  is  applied  to  him,  as  when  speaking  of  any 
thing  else,  as  seen  above  from  the  passages  where  olim 
occurs.  Indeed  if  this  word  signified  endless  duration, 
it  was  necessary  to  give  such  explanations  when  used 
to  express  a  temporary  duration,  but  surely  altogether 
unnecessary  when  speaking  of  God.  If  persons  will 
have  it,  that  the  subject  to  which  olijn  is  applied  de- 
termines whether  it  is  to  be  understood  in  a  limited  or 
endless  sense,  let  them  account  for  the  fact,  that  such 
qualifying  phrases  are  used  when  it  is  applied  to  God. 
What  was  their  use  or  intention  in  such  a  connexion  ? 
Yea,  I  ask,  ought  we  not  rather  to  have  had  some 
phrases  showing  that  olim  when  applied  to  God  was 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  347 

to  be  understood  in  its  most  unlimited  sense  ?  This 
was  necessary,  seeing  the  word  did  not  signify  endless 
duration  of  itself,  was  applied  so  often  to  express  lim- 
ited duration,  and  was  attended  with  such  qualifying 
phraseology  in  so  many  instances.  At  any  rate,  when 
olim  was  applied  to  God,  why  were  not  such  restrict- 
ing phrases  omitted?  This  would  have  been  leaving 
the  subject  to  w^hich  it  is  applied,  to  determine  the  ex- 
tent of  its  meaning  without  any  drawback  from  such 
limiting  phrases.  Were  such  phrases  introduced  for  no 
purpose?  But  if  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  limiting 
or  explaining  olim  in  the  one  case,  no  candid  man  will 
question,  but  they  were  introduced  for  the  same  pur- 
pose in  the  other.  For  example,  the  priesthood  of 
Aaron  is  called  an  everlasting  priesthood,  but  this  is 
explained  by  the  phrase  "  throughout  your  genera- 
tions." So  in  other  instances.  Well,  when  it  is  said 
of  God,  ''  his  mercy  is  from  everlasting  to  everlasting," 
it  is  added,  by  way  of  explanation,  ^'  his  righteousness 
unto  children's  children."  Psalm  ciii.  17.  Again, 
when  it  is  said  '^  thou  art  from  everlasting,"  this  is  a^ain 
explained  by  the  words,  "  thy  throne  is  established  of 
old."  Psalm  xciii.  2.  And  is  it  said  ''  thy  kingdom 
is  an  everlasting  kingdom,"  we  find  it  explained  thus, 
^'  and  thy  dominion  endureth  throughout  all  genera^ 
tions."  Psalm  cxlv.  13.  And  is  it  again  said,  "  his 
mercy  is  everlasting,"  it  is  again  added  as  an  explana-^ 
lion,  "  and  his  truth  endureth  to  all  generations." — 
Give  me  leave  to  ask,  if  everlasting  meant  endless  du- 
ration, why  are  all  these  qualifying  explanatory  phrases 
added  ?  Had  the  word  olim,  rendered  everlasting, 
meant  endless  duration,  and  such  qualifying  phrases 
only  been  added  when  it  was  applied  to  things  of  a 
temporary  nature,  this  would  only  be  guarding  the  ap- 
plication of  the  terra  from  abuse.     But  we  see  that 


348  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

such  explanatory  expressions  are  given  when  it  is  ap- 
plied to  God.  Now  if  the  term  was  intended  to  ex- 
press his  endless  duration,  why  was  this  the  case  ? — 
Why  not  omit  them  in  all  instances  where  he  is  spoken 
of,  and  only  use  them  where  this  term  is  applied  to 
things  of  limited  duration  ?  Had  this  been  done,  it 
would  have  shown,  that  the  inspired  writers  did  use  a 
word  which  expressed  endless  duration,  and  judged  it 
proper  to  guard  its  misapplication  by  such  qualifying 
expressions.  But  if  we  consider  the  word  olim  as  ex- 
pressing limited  and  not  endless  duration,  all  the  quali- 
fying phrases  used  are  proof  that  in  this  sense  the  sa- 
cred writers  wished  themselves  to  be  understood  by 
their  readers.  Is  the  question  then  asked,  what  is  the 
limit  of  time  expressed  by  this  word  ?  So  far  as  I  can 
see  it  is  expressed  by  the  qualifying  expression 
"  throughout  all  generations." 

4th.  The  very  repetition  o(  olim,  and  rendered  for- 
ever ard  ever,  seems  to  show,  that  it  was  not  designed 
to  express  God's  endless  duration.  If  forever,  by  it- 
self, did  express  an  endless  duration  of  time,  why  add 
another  forever  to  it.  This  was  altogether  superflu- 
ous, for  twenty  forevers  added,  could  not  add  to  end- 
less duration.  How  could  adding  another  forever, 
make  the  first  forever,  or  both  taken  together,  an  end- 
less duration  of  time  ?  Add  as  many  forevers  as  you 
please  to  one  another,  if  the  first  expresses  a  limited 
period,  the  number  added  must  still  fall  infinitely  short 
of  eternity.  They  may  make  up  a  very  long  period 
of  time,  hut  still  one  which  must  come  to  an  end.  But 
I  will  leave  it  for  candid  men  to  consider,  if  the  very 
adding  one  forever  to  another,  does  not  fairly  imply, 
that  the  sacred  writers  never  intended  to  express  end- 
less duration  by  this  mode  of  speaking.  Many  people 
seem  to  think,  that  *'  forever  and  ever,"  expresses  end- 


AN    1NQ,UIRY — 'PART    II.  349 

less  duration,  but  if  duly  considered  we  think  it  leads 
to  the  reverse  conclusion,  for  the  very  repetition  of 
"forever"  implies,  that  the  first  forever  was  of  limited 
duration.  This  is  confirmed,  from  considering  that 
forever  and  ever,  is  indiscriminately  applied  to  things 
which  are  to  end,  and  to  God  himself.  Besides,  the 
sacred  writers  give  us  the  same  explanations,  or  quali- 
fying phrases  in  both  cases  when  they  use  this  lan- 
guage. In  short,  whether  forever  and  ever  is  applied 
to  God,  or  to  things  of  temporary  duration,  they  guard 
us  against  understanding  it  as  meaning  a  proper  eter- 
nity. It  is  throughout  all  generations  and  as  long  as 
days  shall  be  measured  by  the  host  of  heaven. 

5th.  But  if  "  forever,"  or,  '^  forever  and  ever,"  is 
used  to  express  endless  duration,  why  speak  of  a  pe- 
riod beyond  this  ?  Thus  in  the  Septuagint  version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  other  words  are  joined  wdth  it, 
which  effectually  restrict  its  meaning.  Thus,  Exod. 
XV.  18.  The  Lord  shall  reign  fore'Ver  and  ever  and 
further.  Dan.  xii.  3.  They  shall  shme  as  the  stars 
forever  and  further.  Mic.  iv.  5.  We  will  walk  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  our  God  forever  and  beyond  it.-^ 
See  Unitarian  Miscel.  vol.  il.  p.  33.  The  translators 
of  this  version  seem  to  have  thought,  that  there  was  a 
period  beyond  forever,  and  forever  and  ever. 

I  am  aware,  that  to  all  this  it  will  be  objected—^ 
"  Does  not  David  say,  Psalm  xc.  2,  '  even  from  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting  thou  art  God,'  and  does  not  this 
express  the  endless  existence  of  God,  both  as  to  past 
and  future  ?  Is  it  not  the  same  as  if  he  had  said,  '  thou 
art  from  infinite  duration  that  is  past  to  infinite  dura- 
tion to  come  ?'  "  Plausible  as  this  appears,  when  these 
words  of  David  are  attended  to,  they  rather  go  tocon^ 
firm  the  views  which  have  been  advanced.  Hallet,  in 
his  Notes,  vol.  i.  pp.  75, 16,  thus  writes »  "  Psalm  xl'h 
23 


350  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

13.  'Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  from  everlast- 
ing, and  to  everlasting.  Amen,  and  Amen.'  I  am  apt 
to  think,  that  many  English  readers  suppose,  that  the 
words  from  everlasting,  signified  a  duration  that  was 
past  in  the  days  of  the  psalmist.  But,  on  second 
thoughts,  the  English  reader  will  perceive  that  this 
cannot  possibly  be.  The  psalmist  here  expresses  his 
desire  that  God  may  be  blessed-.  But  it  is  impossible 
to  desire,  that  God  may  be  blessed  heretofore.  To 
say,  blessed  he  God  in  past  ages,  would  be  as  ridiculous 
as  the  advice  a  late  divine  has  given  Christians,  to  pray 
that  the  one  catholic  church  may  be  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self being  the  chief  corner  stone.  The  text  then  must 
be  rendered,  blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  from 
a^e  to  a";e  :  i.  e.  from  this  time  forth,  throuohout  all 
ages.  Every  one  will  allow,  that  the  Hebrew  word 
olim,  here  rendered  everlasting,  does  frequently  signify 
an  age,  'or  generation.  Nor  will  any  one  object  to 
this  interpretation  of  the  word  and  from  everlasting 
a^nd  to  everlasting  ;  as  if  this  would  hinder  us  from 
rendering  the  expression, /ro77i  age  to  age;  when  he 
shall  consider  that  the  word  and,  in  such  like  expres- 
sions is  redundant  or  superfluous  in  our  language,  what- 
ever grace  it  adds  to  the  Hebrew  phrase.  Thus  the 
Hebrew  expression,  2  Chron.  ix.  26,  is  literally  to  be 
rendered,  '  from  the  river  and  unto  the  land  of  the  Phi- 
listines.' Our  translators  have  rendered  the  Hebrew 
particle  by  even  ;  'from  the  river  even  unto  the  land 
of  the  Philistines.'  It  would  have  been  as  well  if  they 
had  dropt  It  quite,  and  had  said,  '  from  the  river  to  the 
land  of  the  Philistines.'  See  also  2  Chron.  xxx.  5. — 
So  also  the  passage  of  the  Psalm  under  consideration 
may  be  rendered,  blessed  be  God  from  age  even  to  age, 
or,  more  simply,  from  age  to  age.     In  the  same  sense 


AN    INQ,UIRY— PART    II.  351 

the  expression  is  to  be  understood,  Psalm  ciii.  17. — 
'  The  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to  ever- 
lasting,' or  rather  from  age  to  age,  i.  e.  from  this  age 
to  tlie  next,  and  so  on  throughout  all  future  ages.  In 
the  same  manner,  I  conjecture,  we  must  understand 
this  same  expression.  Psalm  xc.  2,  which  I  would  ren- 
der thus  :  '  Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth, 
or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  or  the  world,  and 
from  aoe  to  age  thou  art  God.'  " 

But  it  is  likely  to  be  further  objected,  "  That  if  '  for- 
ever and  ever'  is  not  admitted  as  expressing  the  end- 
less existence  of  God,  is  not  this  attempting  to  do  away 
his  endless  existence  ?"  I  would  answer,  by  no  means  ; 
for  his  endless  existence  is  altogether  independent  of 
these  terms  being  applied  to  him,  and  why  give  a  wrong 
meaning  to  Scripture  in  support  of  this  doctrine  ?  Is 
there  no  other  way  of  establishing  the  eternity  of  God's 
existence  but  by  means  of  these  words  ?  If  there  had 
not,  we  should  hardly  think  the  inspired  writers  would 
have  used  such  qualifying  language  in  connexion  with 
them,  when  they  applied  them  to  God.  Instead  of 
modifying,  they  would  have  added  some  additional 
phrase,  to  show  that  they  wished  to  be  so  under- 
stood. 

We  think  no  considerate  man  will  affirm,  that  aion, 
or  aionios,  of  the  New  Testament  can  express  endless 
duration,  unless  olim  of  the  Old,  expresses  such  a  du- 
ration. The  New  Testament  writers  in  no  case  intir 
mate  that  olim  of  the  Old  Testament  sicrnifies  limited, 
but  that  aio7i  and  aionios  of  the  New,  mean  eternal 
duration.  On  the  contrary,  they  use  these  words  in 
several  instances  as  a  correct  expression  of  what  is  to 
be  understood  by  olim  in  the  Old  Testament. 

2d.  But  it  is  further  supposed,  that  olim,  aion,  and 
aionios^  rendered  everlasting,  must  mean  endless  dura^* 


352  AN    INQUIRY PART   II, 

tion  when  applied  to  life  ;  and  "  everlasting  life,"  fs 
considered  to  be  the  never  ending  life,  enjoyed  beyond 
this  mortal  existence.     If  we  have  counted  correctly 
the  phrases  zoen  aionion,  zoe  aionios,  zoes  aionioii, 
and  aionios  zoe,  occur  just  forty-tlnee  times  in  the  New 
Testament.     They  are  rendered  everlasting  life,  eter- 
nal life,  life  everlasting,  and  life  eternal  ;  but  all  mean 
the  same  thing,  as  is  evident  from  comparing  in  the 
Greek  John  xvii.  2,  with  verse  3,  and  other  passages. 
This  phraseology  is  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament, 
as  it  occurs  only  Dan.  xii.  2,  and  in  reference  to  the 
age  of  the  Messiah.     Had  it  referred  to  a  life  common 
to  believers  under  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  dispensa- 
tions, why  was  this  the  case  ?     If  it  means,  as  most 
Christians  believe,  the  life  or  happiness  of  the  heaven- 
ly state,  Old  Testament  saints  must  have  known  it,  for 
they  looked  for  this.      See  Heb.  chap.  xi.     But  they 
are  never  said  to  have  it,  to  have  it  abiding  in  them, 
or  even  to  hope  for  it,  which  is  often  said  of  New  Tes- 
tament believers.     Besides,  though    all  the  prophets 
bore  witness  to  Christ,  yet  he  is  never  called  "  eternal 
life^'   by  any  of  them,  as  by  the  New  Testament  wri- 
ters.    The  reason  seems  to  be,  that  this  title  referred 
to  his  manifestation  in  the  flesh  ;  hence  John  calls  him, 
"  that  eternal  life  which  was  with  the  father,  and  was 
manifested  unto   us."     This  agrees  to  its  being  said, 
that  "  eternal  life"  was  to  be  enjoyed  in  "  the  world  to 
come,"  or  "  the  age  of  the  Messiah,"  which  orthodox 
critics  say  above,  "  began  at  his  first  advent  and  shall 
be  completed  at  his  second  coming."    The  word  ever- 
lasting added  to  life  proves  nothing  about  its  enjoy- 
ment in  a  future  state  or  its  endless  duration,  for  the 
New  Covenant  is  called  everlastino:.     The  kintrdom, 
reign,  and  priesthood  of  Christ,  are  called  everlasting. 
But  does  this  mean  endless  duration  ?     This  kingdom 


^ 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  353 

Christ  received,  and  he  is  again  to  deliver  it  up  to  God 
the  father.  Hence  the  Jews  say,  "  that  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah  shall  return  to  its  first  author."  And 
shall  not  his  priesthood,  called  an  everlasting  priest- 
hood, cease  when  he  shall  have  none  to  intercede  for, 
and  his  reign  end,  when  all  are  subdued,  and  God  be 
all  in  all  ?  His  priesthood  shall  not  pass  away  like 
that  of  Aaron's,  nor  his  kingdom  like  other  kingdoms 
of  this  world,  but  shall  continue  while  sun  and  moon 
endure.  The  life  enjoyed  in  this  kingdom  is  called 
everlasting  life,  and  the  consolation  in  it  everlasting 
consolation.  In  short,  I  conceive  that  all  the  everlast- 
ings of  which  the  Scriptures  speak,  stand  in  some  shape 
or  other  connected  with  God's  dispensation  of  love  and 
mercy  to  man  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  ages  or 
everlastings  began  with  it,  and  shall  terminate  when 
Christ  hath  subdued  all  things,  and  the  last  enemy 
death  is  destroyed.  Hence  the  state  after  this,  does 
not  appear  to  me  to  be  described  in  Scripture  by  the 
expression  "everlasting  life,"  but  by  other  words  and 
phrases.  For  example — The  dead  are  said  to  put  on 
incorruption  or  immortality.  Mortality  is  then  to  be 
swallowed  up  of  life.  They  cannot  die  any  more,  but 
are  equal  unto  the  angels,  being  sons  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, their  inheritance  is  incorruptible  and  Jadeth  not 
away,  and  they  are  to  be  (paniott)  forever  with  the 
Lord. 

The  phrase  "everlasting  life,"  occurs  only  once  in 
the  Old  Testament,  but  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  New.  But  why  was  this  the  case,  and  why  is  it 
spoken  of  as  a  thing  enjoyed  upon  believing  in  Jesus, 
and  as  connected  with  his  rei^n  or  kingdom  which  is 
to  end,  if  it  designated  the  life  and  enjoyment  beyond 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  Besides,  it  is  set  in 
contrast  with  the  everlasting  punishment,  into  which 


354  AN    INQUIRY PART    II. 

the  Jews  and  others  have  gone  for  nearly  eighteen 
hundred  years,  as  shown  above.  It  never  can  be 
proved,  that  it  is  ever  contrasted  with  eternal  death, 
or  a  punishment  after  the  resurrection  of  all  the  dead. 
But  this  ought  to  have  been  its  contrast,  and  contrast- 
ed as  often  as  everlasting  life  is  contrasted,  if  the  com- 
mon doctrine  be  true.  Were  the  inspired  writers  so 
perfectly  indifferent  about  the  eternal  death  of  their 
fellow  creatures,  that  they  did  not  think  it  worth  while 
once  to  mention  it  ?  They  were  surely  not  so  much 
alarmed  about  this  as  many  modern  preachers  are,  for 
eternal  life  and  eternal  death  are  their  constant  themes, 
and  they  cannot  deny,  that  these  expressions  are  used 
by  them  in  contrast  to  describe  the  endless  felicity  and 
misery  of  men  in  a  future  state.  But  where  did  they 
learn  this?  Not  from  their  Bibles,  for  it  contains  no 
sucli  contrast.  Such  men  must  presume  a  great  deal 
on  the  ignorance  and  credulity  of  their  hearers,  who 
think  to  make  their  sayings  pass  for  the  declarations  of 
Jehovah. 

3d.  The  term  everlasting,  is  also  applied  to  punish- 
ment ;  and  it  is  confidently  affirmed,  that  it  expresses 
the  endless  duration  of  it.  The  places  where  it  is  so 
applied,  are  few  in  number,  and  can  easily  be  counted 
by  the  reader,  as  they  have  all  been  laid  before  him. 
Such  of  them,  on  which  dependence  is  placed  in  proof 
of  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  have  been  fully 
and  particularly  considered.  For  example.  Matt.  xxv. 
46,  and  2  Thess.  i.  9,  the  strong  holds  of  this  doctrine, 
have  been  razed  to  the  foundations.  It  has  been 
proved,  we  think,  that  so  far  from  those  passages 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  they  do 
not  even  teach  a  punishment  beyond  this  life.  If 
these  two  texts  fail  in  supporting  it,  it  is  useless  to  at- 
tempt its  defence  from  any  other  part  of  Scripture, 


AN    INQUIRY PART    II.  355 

To  conclude.  We  have  attempted  to  examine  the 
common  doctrines  of  the  devil  and  eternal  punishment 
with  all  the  candor  and  fairness  we  could  command. 
It  has  resulted  in  the  fullest  conviction,  that  these  doc- 
trines are  not  taught  in  Scripture,  but  are  the  produc- 
tion of  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  which  is  foolishness 
with  God  and  which  cometh  to  naught.  Persuaded, 
the  more  the  Scriptures  are  examined  this  will  the 
more  clearly  appear,  we  have  published  our  views  on 
the  subject;  hoping  it  will  be  pursued  by  others  who 
have  more  time,  and  better  talents,  to  throw  additional 
light  on  it.  We  can  sincerely  say  that  we  have  sought 
after  the  truth,  and  from  the  love  of  truth,  for  this  only 
can  stand,  when  all  human  devices  in  religion  shall  fall. 
If  we  have  not  found  the  truth,  but  have  embraced 
error,  we  hold  ourselves  in  readiness  to  attend  to  what- 
ever can  be  said  on  the  other  side.  Truth  can  never 
suffer  by  calm,  candid  discussion,  but  error  shuns  the 
light,  deprecates  investigation,  and  is  ever  ready  to 
cry  heresy,  and  that  the  church  is  in  danger. 


END  OF  PART  Il< 


PART    III. 

AN  INQUIRY    INTO    THE    POSSESSIONS    OF    DEVILS,  MEN- 
TIONED IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  the  first  part  of  this  work  it  has  been  shown,  that 
the  terms  devil  and  satan,  in  the  Bible,  do  not  desig- 
nate an  evil  spirit — an  angel  who  fell  from  heaven. — 
We  shall  now  inquire,  if  the  devils  with  which  per- 
sons were  supposed  to  be  possessed,  are  evil  spirits 
who  fell  with  him,  as  many  believe.  It  is  often  said 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  certain  persons  were  pos- 
sessed with  a  devil,  and  one  man  declared  that  he  had 
a  legion  of  them  within  him.  But  no  such  statements 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  do  we  find 
any  such  things  in  the  present  day.  In  the  apostolic 
age,  these  devils  were  supposed  to  inflict  madness  and 
other  disorders  on  men,  yet  no  person  imputes  the  same 
evils  to  them  in  the  present  day.  Are  such  devils  all 
dead  ?  Have  they  lost  their  power  to  inflict  such  dis- 
orders ?  Are  they  all  turned  good  devils  ?  or  have  we 
been  mistaken  in  what  is  said  in  the  New  Testament 
about  them  ? 

It  is  very  certain,  the  word  6/ei;i7  misleads  the  English 
reader.  The  Greek  words  diabolos,  daimon,  daimonion, 
are  all  rendered,  in  the  common  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  by  this  word  devil,  and  in  the  plural  de- 
vils. But  the  last  two  words  are  essentially  different 
in  meaning  from  the  first,  and  in  modern  translations 
are  rendered  demon,  and  in  the  plural  demons.      The 


358  AN    INQUIRY PART    III. 

three  words  are  never  used  to  express  the  same  being 
or  thing  by  the  sacred  writers.  They  never  intimate 
that  any  person  was  possessed  with  diabolos,  the  devil. 
The  devil  is  spoken  of  as  one,  and  is  only  used  in  the 
plural  number  when  speaking  of  human  beings.  But 
the  demons  are  spoken  of  as  many,  and  were  cast  out 
of  persons.  Dinbolos  is  never  said  to  be  cast  out  of 
any  person.  This  marked  distinction  between  the  de- 
vil and  demons  is  lost  in  our  common  English  version  : 
for  diabolos,  daimon  and  daimonion  are  all  rendered 
by  our  English  word  devil. 

If  the  terms  devil  and  satan  do  not  designate  an 
angel  who  fell  from  heaven,  the  presumption  is,  de- 
mons are  not  angels  who  fell  with  him.  It  is  very  cer- 
tain no  such  thing  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  if  not 
found  there,  how  came  it  to  be  known,  that  demons 
are  fallen  angels?  Some  have  supposed,  demons  to  be 
the  mongrel  breed  of  some  angels  with  the  daughters 
of  men.  Others,  as  a  race  of  malignant  and  mis- 
chievous spirits  ;  and  we  shall  see  they  are  deemed  by 
some  the  ghosts  of  deified  dead  men,  mere  imaginary 
beings,  and  originated  in  the  vain  imaginations  of  the 
heathen.  It  is  certain,  the  Bible  no  where  says  that 
God  created  them,  or  gives  us  any  account  of  their 
origin.  Dr.  Campbell  says,  '  What  the  precise  idea 
of  demons,  to  whom  possessions  were  ascribed,  then 
was,  it  would  be,  perhaps,  impossible  for  us,  with  any 
certainty,  to  affirm."  This,  in  one  sense  is  true,  for 
the  Bible  gives  us  no  })recise  idea  of  demons,  as  real 
beings.  But  if  they  were  ideal  beings,  created  by  the 
imaginations  of  men,  we  may,  perhaps,  ascertain  this 
to  be  a  fact,  which  is  sufficient  on  the  subject.  It  is 
evident,  the  New  Testament  writers  speak  of  demons, 
and  of  persons  being  possessed  with  them,  not  as  a  new 
thing  under  the  sun,  but  as  a   popular  and  common 


AN     INQUIRY PART    111.  359 

thing,  and  speak  in  the  common  language  of  the  age 
about  them.  They  speak  of  demons,  the  devil  and 
satan,  of  the  god  mammom,  of  transmigration,  and 
other  things,  without  saying  how  such  opinions  origin- 
ated, or,  whether  they  were  true  or  false.  To  have 
corrected  all  the  false  opinions  of  the  age,  would  have 
been  an  arduous  and  vain  work,  and  had  they  not 
spoken  of  things  in  the  common  language  of  other 
people,  they  could  not  be  understood,  but  would  have 
subjected  themselves  to  the  charge  of  vanity  and  affec- 
tation. They  did  then,  what  we  do  now,  speak  in  the 
popular  language  of  the  day.  We  speak  of  St.  An- 
thony's fire,  St.  Vitus'  dance,  and  of  the  rising  and 
setting  of  the  sun,  and  people  would  smile  at  the  man 
who  refused  to  do  so. 

The  question  with  us  now  ought  to  be,  what  is  the 
best  course,  to  arrive  at  true  views  about  the  demons, 
and  the  possessions  of  them  in  the  New  Testament? 
I  answer,  to  examine  first,  what  the  Old  Testament 
teaches  us  about  demons,  evil  spirits,  etc.  The  Old' 
and  New  Testaments  were  written  principally  by  Jews, 
and  among  Jews  ;  and  he  who  would  correctly  under- 
stand the  latter,  must  make  himself  acquainted  with 
the  former.  The  Old  Testament  is  the  best  dictionary, 
to  learn  the  language  of  the  New.  That  person  is  ill 
prepared  to  understand  the  New  Testament  about  de- 
mons, who  has  not  consulted  the  old,  respectmg  them, 
evil  spirits,  etc.  And  in  his  examination  of  both, 
ought  to  consider  himself  a  Jew  ;  living  among  them 
in  past  ages  ;  and  passing  with  them  through  all  their 
changes;  going  with  them  into  their  captivities  ;  and 
returning  with  them  to  their  own  land,  with  all  the 
heathen  notions  they  had  imbibed.  The  shortest  and 
surest  way  which  we  can  take,  to  arrive  at  the  truth 
about  the  demons  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  is 


360  AN    INQUIRY PART    lU. 

to  examine  the  Old,  The  inquiry  must  be,  did  the 
Jews  learn  from  their  scripture,  that  demons  were  evil 
spirits  or  fallen  angels  1  If  they  did  not,  the  question 
will  then  arise,  from  what  source  did  they  derive  the 
opinions  about  demons,  and  the  possessions  of  them, 
which  were  entertained  by  them  in  the  days  of  our 
Lord  ?  Were  they  a  new  revelation  from  God  ?  If  not, 
were  they  invented  among  themselves  ?  And  if  not, 
did  they  learn  them  from  the  heathen  with  whom  they 
had  intercourse  ?  Until  we  have  examined  these  ques- 
tions, we  are  not  prepared  to  form  correct  views  o^  de- 
mons and  the  possession  of  them  in  the  New  Testament. 
What  then  does  the  Old  Testament  teach  us  respecting 
demons,  evil  spirits,  etc.  ?  What  does  the  apocryphal 
books  teach  us  on  this  subject?  And  what  do  we  learn 
from  the  heathen  opinions  about  demons,  as  given  by 
writers  respecting  them  ?  We  adopt  this  course  of  in- 
vestigation as  the  best  we  can  devise,  and  shall  pursue 
it  as  far  as  is  practicable.     I  shall  then  examine, 

1.  The  Old  Testament.  Dr.  Campbell  remarks,  that 
"  diaholos  is  always  in  the  Hebrew,  tsar,  enemy,  or, 
satan,  adversary  ;  words  never  translated  in  the  sep- 
tuagint  daimonion.  This  word  on  the  contrary,  is 
made  to  express  some  Hebrew  term,  signifying  idol, 
pagan  deity,  apparition,  or,  what  some  render  satyr." 
That  demons  are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  show.     The  first  passage  is, 

Deut.  xxxii.  17.  "They  sacrificed  unto  devils,  not 
to  God  ;  to  gods  whom  they  knew  not,  to  new  gods, 
that  came  newly  up,  whom  your  fathers  feared  not." 
The  Jews  never  sacrificed  to  diaholos,  the  devil. 
But  they  often  sacrificed  to  demons,  to  idols,  or 
strange  gods.  And  the  names  of  those  strange 
gods  are  often  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
could  be  easily  shewn.     What  those  demons,  or  false 


AN    INQUIRY PART   111.  361 

gods  were  we  have  noticed  elsewhere  ;  and  here  may 
notice  once  for  all,  they  always  stand  condemned  in 
scripture.  And  what  the  Jews  sacrificed  to  them, 
we  shall  see  immediately.  But  it  will  be  asked,  who, 
or  what  were  those  demons  to  which  they  sacrificed  ? 
We  shall  see  afterward,  that  they  were  the  ghosts  of 
dead  men  deified,  or,  imaginary  beings,  whom  they 
raised  to  the  honour  of  being  gods. 

The  second  text  is  Psal.  xci.  6.  Thou  shalt  not  be 
afraid' — "  for  the  pestilence  that  walketh  in  darkness  ; 
nor  for  the  destruction  (daimonion^  that  wasteth  at 
noonday."  Some  render  'W"^^^ from  accidents,  and 
the  demon  at  noonday!^  Some  say,  it  was  "a  maxim 
with  Pythagoras,  that  Heroes  should  be  worshipped 
at  noon."  It  is  added  '^  in  warm  countries  where 
people  go  to  sleep  at  noon,  all  disturbances  were  to 
be  avoided  ;  and  evil  spirits  are  there,  at  that  time  of 
day  as  much  talked  of,  as  with  us  they  are  in  dark 
nights,  and  perhaps  for  the  same  reason."  But  as 
the  orifiinal  now  stands,  it  affords  no  solid  ground  for 
any  demon  or  evil  spirit,  nor  does  anything  like  this 
appear  in  our  English  version.  This  must  be  obvious 
to  all.     The  demon,  was  some  natural  evil, 

The  third  text  is  Psal.  xcvi.  5- — "for  all  the  gods 
of  the  nations  are  idols  (daimonia,)  but  the  Lord 
made  the  heavens."  Here  it  is  expressly  said — "  all 
the  gods  of  the  heathen  are  demons.''^  In  the  odgi- 
nal  it  is,  alilim,  vanities,  nothings.  In  other  places 
they  are  called  ''  lying  vanities.^'  And  God  says, 
Isai.  xlv.  5 — ^'  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else, 
there  is  no  God  beside  me^  But  the  words  of  Psal. 
xcvi.  5,  are  also  found  in  ]  Chron.  xvi.  26,  and  there 
alilim  is  rendered  eidolon,  idols,  and  not  daimonia, 
Levit.  xix.  4  is  rendered  in  a  similar  way.  And 
alilim  in  Job  xiii.  4,  is  rendered  **of  no  value."     But 


36*2  Ax\  INQUIRY PART  III. 

if  demons  are  evil  spirits,  how  can  it  be  said  they  are 
vanities,  nothino's,  or,  of  no  value,  if  they  both  pos- 
sessed men  and  tormented  them  ?  No  ;  if  this  was 
true,  they  were  something  of  a  very  important  nature 
to  the  persons  who  suffered  from  them.  But  this 
passage  ought  to  settle  the  question  about  demons  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  especially  as  Paul  declares 
the  same  thing,  that  an  '^  idol  or  demon  is  nothing 
in  the  world."  To  suppose  them  real  beings,  evil 
spirits,  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  but 
admits  that  they  can  work  something  very  like  mira- 
cles, in  tormenting  mankind.  Some  of  the  Jews 
thought  that  Beelzebub  was  the  worker  of  the  mira- 
cles in  our  Lord,  which  if  admitted  goes  to  invalidate 
all  true  miracles  in  proof  of  a  divine  revelation.  If 
-'  all  the  gods  of  the  nations  were  demons, ^^  I  ask, 
were  persons  possessed  with  heathen  gods  ? 

The  next  text  is  Psal.  cvi.  37.  "  Yea,  they  sacri- 
ficed their  sons  and  their  daughters  unto  devils  "  (dai- 
moniois.)  Here  we  are  told,  that  they  "  sacrificed 
their  sons  and  their  daughters,"  and  sacrificed  them  to 
demons,  to  idols,  to  false  ideal  gods,  the  names  of 
which  can  be  found  in  other  places  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. And  yet,  it  is  believed  by  many,  that  these 
imaginary  beings  did  possess  and  torment  men,  from 
what  is  said  in  the  New  Testament.  But  the  Jews, 
nor  any  one  else,  could  not  have  believed  this,  had 
the  Old  Testament  scriptures  been  their  guide,  and  had 
not  imbibed  the  heathen  notions  about  demons.  It  is 
plain,  the  ancient  Jews,  had  very  different  views 
about  demons,  from  their  descendants  in  the  days  of 
our  Lord,  for  they  speak  of  them  very  differently. 

The  next  text  is  Isai.  xiii.  21.  "  But  wild  beasts 
of  the  desert  shall  lie  there  ;  and  their  houses  shall 
be  full  of  doleful  creatures  ;  and  owls  shall    dwell 


AN  INQUIRY PART  HI.  363 

there,  and  satyrs  (daimonia^  shall  dance  there.'? 
The  Hebrew  word  here  is  soir,  which  some  say 
means  hairy  beings.  But  the  whole  verse  seem' 
intended  to  describe  the  desolate  condition  of  Baby-= 
Ion,  that  all  kinds  of  wild  birds,  and  beasts  should 
inhabit  it.  See  also  Isai.  xxxiv.  14,  where  demonia 
is  also  rendered  satyr,  but  requires  no  further  notice, 
for  it  is  similar  to  the  one  just  mentioned.  If  demons 
are  fallen  angels,  it  seems  they  are  hairy  beings,  have 
their  abode  with  wild  beasts  at  Babylon,  and  dance 
there.  But  who  believes  this  ?  or,  who  can  believe 
such  demons  possessed  men,  and  inflicted  madness 
and  other  disorders  upon  them  ? 

The  next  text  is  Isai.  Ixv.  11.  "  But  ye  are  they 
that  forsake  the  Lord,  that  forget  my  holy  mountain, 
that  prepare  a  table  for  that  troop  (daimonio,)  and  that 
furnish  the  drink  offering  unto  that  number."  Gad  is 
put  in  the  margin,  for  that  troop  in  the  text,  and  for 
that  number,  is  put  Meni.  Jerome  says,  it  is  uncertain, 
whether  Gad  or  Meni  was  originally  translated  demon. 
Some  have  thought  an  allusion  is  here  made  to  some 
Egyptian  custom.  And  Dr.  Spencer  thought  the  most 
natural  sense  was,  that  they  jpreyared  a  table  to  Gad, 
and  a  drink  offering  to  Meni,  But  be  this  as  it  may, 
it  is  plain  enough,  the  troop  referred  to  was  not  a  troop 
of  fallen  angels,  or  evil  spirits,  but  of  heathen  divini- 
ties, demons,  or  false  gods,  and  agrees  with  other  pas- 
sages already  noticed.  It  is  well  known,  the  demons, 
or  false  gods  of  the  heathen,  were  numerous,  and  that 
they  spread  a  table  for  them  to  eat  and  drink  at.  See 
on  1  Cor.  X.  1  9 — 22,  below. 

Len.  xvii.  7,  says — "  And  they  shall  no  more  offer 
their  sacriGces  unto  devils,  after  whom  they  have  gone 
a  w^horing."  I  might  have  passed  over  this  text,  for 
the  word  in  the  septuagint  is  not  daim,onia.     In  the 


364  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

Hebrew  the  word  for  devils  in  this  text  is — leshiodim, 
which  the  seventy  render  by  the  word  mataiois,  vain 
gods.  Some  think  Pan  is  the  God  referred  to  ;  and 
according  to  Herodotus,  statue  makers  and  painters, 
"  make  the  image  of  Pan  with  a  she  goat's  face,  and  a 
he  goat's  legs  ;  and  that  a  goat  and  Pan  were  in  the 
Egyptian  language  called  Me^ides.''  Be  this  as  it 
may,  there  is  no  reference  in  this  passage  to  wicked 
spirits  or  fallen  angels,  but  to  heathen  gods,  idols,  mere 
nonentities,  or  nothings  in  the  world.  If  any  one  sup- 
poses the  Jews  sacrificed  to  devils,  meaning /ofZ/c?i  an- 
gels or  wicked  spirits,  it  is  a  great  mistake.  I  shall 
show  presently,  from  a  high  orthodox  writer,  that  the 
Jews  did  not  know  about  evil  spirits  until  their  captiv- 
ity in  Babylon.  And  the  fact  deserves  notice,  that 
since  that  period,  the  Jews  have  not  been  given  to 
idolatry. 

Having  adduced  all  the  texts  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  speaks  of  demons,  what  conclusions  are  we  to 
draw  from  them  ?  I  answer,  we  cannot  conclude  that 
demons  were  fallen  angels,  or  wicked  spirits,  for  not 
a  hint  of  this  is  giveii  in  any  one  of  them.  But  we 
may  conclude  on  the  best  of  evidence  that  demons 
were  heathen  gods,  imaginary  beings,  wlio  could  not 
do  good  or  evil  ;  and  if  gods,  are  called  on  by  the 
true  God,  to  show  this  by  doing  either  of  these  things. 
We  may  also  safely  conclude,  that  the  Jews  before 
they  went  to  Babylon,  had  heard  of  and  known  some- 
thing about  demons,  for  they  had  sacrificed  even  their 
sons  and  daughters  to  them.  And  if  Josephus  may 
be  credited,  Solomon  not  only  knew  about  demons, 
but  had  found  out  a  root,  the  smell  of  which  expelled 
demons.  But  it  was  not  until  the  Jews  had  gone  to 
Babylon,  that  they  learned  that  demons  were  evil 
spirits,  or  regarded  them  as  such*    But  having  learned 


AN    INQUIRY PART    III.  365 

the  heathen  notions  about  demons,  and  forsaking  their 
own  scriptures,  they  gradually  made  void  God's  law 
by  these  and  their  own  traditions  ;  so  that  demons, 
and  the  possession  of  demons,  were  as  familiar  to 
ihem  in  Christ's  day,  as  among  the  heathen  around 
them.  It  is  a  great  mistake  in  some,  who  think,  the 
possession  of  demons  was  unknown  before  and  after 
the  days  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles.  In  Christ's 
day,  the  possession  of  demons  was  no  new  thing,  as 
has  been  repeatedly  prov^ed  from  heathen  writers,  as 
may  appear  in  the  sequel.  Besides,  the  persons  sup* 
posed  to  be  possessed  with  demons,  labored  under  the 
very  same  or  similar  disorders  as  those  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament.  All  diseases,  either  of  body  or 
mind,  were  not  imputed  to  demons.  Christ  cured  Pe- 
ter's wife's  mother  of  a  fever  and  the  person  born  blind, 
but  these  evils  are  not  ascribed  to  the  possession  of 
demons.  Epileptics,  lunatics,  and  madmen  in  Christ's 
day,  and  long  before  it,  were  said  to  be  possessed 
with  demons  ;  and  wherever  ignorance  and  supersti- 
tion have  prevailed,  strange  and  unaccountable  things 
are  generally  ascribed  to  supernatural  beings  as  the 
cause  of  them.  A  great  many  people  are  fond  of  the 
marvellous  ;  and  it  could  be  shown,  that  among  the 
ancient  Jews,  things  were  ascribed  to  God,  which 
were  done  by  men.  The  heathen  ascribed  all  good 
things  to  their  good  j^ods,  but  evil  things  to  evil  spirits. 
But  Job  ascribed  both  to  the  true  God.  See  Job 
ii.  10. 

Evil  spirits.  This  phrase  is  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  is  synonymous  to  the  word  demons.  And 
as  the  Old  Testament  is  allowed  to  be  the  best  com- 
mentary on  the  New,  the  phraseology,  idioms,  and 
modes  of  thought  and  speech,  being  borrowed  from  it^ 
some  light  will  be  shed  on  the  subject  before  us.  We 
24 


366  AN    INQ,U1RY PART    111. 

begin  by  noticing  the  usage  of  the  term  spirit.  Its 
peculiar  usage  may  be  seen  at  length  by  consulting  a 
concordance  on  this  word.  For  example,  we  read  of 
"the  spirit  of  prophecy,  the  spirit  of  slumber,"  etc. 
Dr.  Campbell  observes  —  "  that  it  is  a  common  idiom 
among  the  Jews  to  put  spirit  before  any  quality  as- 
cribed to  a  person,  whether  good  or  bad,  mental  or 
corporal  thus,  the  spirit  of  fear  is  used  to  express 
habitual  fear, "  etc.  It  is  easily  perceived  from  this, 
that  any  bad  thing  might  be  turned  into  an  evil  spirit 
by  connecting  the  word  spirit  with  it.  And  this  was 
the  more  easily  done,  if  the  term  spirit  was  applied 
to  imaginary  beings,  supposed  to  do  men  evil.  They 
were  personified,  and  spoken  of  as  real  beings,  and 
were  believed  by  many  to  have  an  actual  existence, 
and  could  do  them  good  or  evil.  Hence  they  oiiered 
sacrifices  to  them,  to  procure  their  favor  or  turn  away 
their  displeasure ;  for  what  is  it,  which  ignorance  and 
superstition  will  not  lead  men  to  do  in  religion  ?  •  But 
let  us  see  what  is  said  about, 

"  Evil  spirits "  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  This 
phrase  in  the  plural,  is  not  found  there,  but  the  ex- 
pression '•  evil  spirit  in  the  singular  occurs  in  the 
following  places.  In  Judges  ix.  *-23  it  is  said  —  then 
God  sent  an  evil  spirit  between  Abimelech  and  the 
men  of  Shechem  ;  and  the  men  of  Shechem  dealt 
treacherously  with  Abimelech.  "  But  I  ask,  did  God 
send  a  fallen  angel  between  Abimelech  and  the  men 
of  Shechem  ?  No  one  I  tiiink  affirms  this,  for  ''  evil 
spirit "  here  does  not  mean  a  demon,  a  wicked  being, 
but  a  spirit  of  opposition  and  hostility,  as  the  con- 
text shows.  In  all  the  other  places,  where  the  j)hrase 
^^  evil  spirit^^  occurs,  it  refers  to  Saul.  Thus  it  is 
said,  1  Sam.  xvi.  14,  15,  16  —  "but  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  departed  from  Saul,  and  an  evil  spirit  from  the 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    III.  367 

Lord  troubled  him.  And  Saul's  servants  said  unto 
him,  behold  now,  an  evil  spirit  from  God  troubleth 
thee.  Lee  our  Lord  now  command  thy  servants, 
which  are  before  thee,  to  seek  out  a  man  who  is  a 
cunning  player  on  an  harp :  and  it  shall  come  to  pass, 
when  the  evil  spirit  from  God  is  upon  thee,  that  he 
shall  play  with  his  hand,  and  thou  shalt  be  well,"  In 
verses  LT — 23  we  are  told  that  David  was  sent  for, 
and  it  is  added  verse  23  —  '•'  And  it  came  to  pass 
when  the  evil  spirit  from  God  was  upon  Saul,  that 
David  took  an  harp,  and  played  with  his  hand:  so 
Saul  was  refreshed,  and  was  well,  and  the  evil  spirit 
departed  from  him."  But  from  chap,  xvlil.  10,  and 
xix.  9,  we  learn  that  this  evil  spirit  returned  upon 
Saul,  and  under  its  influence  he  attempted  to  kill 
David.  But  can  any  one  suppose,  God  sent  a  fallen 
angel  or  wicked  being  on  Saul,  or,  that  he  was  a 
demoniac.  VVhat  then  was  this  evil  spirit  ?  The 
Chaldee  paraphrast  says  —  "Saul  was  mad,  or  acted 
as  a  madman  in  his  house."  Saul's  disorder  at  first, 
seems  to  have  been  only  a  melancholy  madness,  and 
it  is  likel}^  the  women's  praises  of  David  made  him 
worse.  —  "Saul  hath  slain  his  thousands,  and  David 
his  ten  thousands,  "  roused  him  to  jealousy  and  fury, 
and  led  him  to  attempt  killing  David.  See  1  Sam, 
xviii.  7 — 12,  and  xix.  9 — 12.  Saul's  wrath  seems 
to  have  been  directed  only  against  David.  Had  his 
'•  evil  spirit "  been  a  fallen  angel  or  a  wicked  being, 
how  could  his  servants  suppose,  David's  music  could 
drive  him  away  ?  and  did  so  for  a  season.  Are  such 
beings  charmed,  or  frightened  away  by  fine  music  ? 
But  if  his  disease  was  melancholy,  it  is  well  known, 
that  to  this  day  good  music  tends  to  remove  it.  It  is 
said  by  Theophrastus  —  "music  cures  many  disorders 
of  the  mind  and  body -^  such  cis  faiqtings,  fears,  and 


368  AN    INQUIRY^"— PART    llf« 

disorders  of  the  mind.  The  playing  upon  the  pipe 
cures  the  sciatica  and  epilepsy."  And  Marlianus 
Capella  says,  "  I  have  cured  madness  by  symphony.'' 
Melancholy  might  be  driven  away  for  a  season  at 
least  by  good  music,  but  how  a  fallen  angel,  a  wicked 
spirit  could  be  removed  by  it,  is  not  easily  understood. 
Maimonides  observes  — "  that  the  Jews  call  every 
sort  of  melancholy  an  evil  spirit :  and  explains  evil 
spirit  by  disease, "  which  agrees  with  the  usage  of 
spirit,  as  shown  above.  It  is  said,  that  Saul  prophe- 
sied under  his  melancholy  or  madness.  And  some  of 
the  ancients  supposed  madmen  could  foretell  future 
events.  When  the  poets  spoke  of  the  heathen  proph- 
ets they  represented  them  as  mad,  alienated  in  their 
minds.  Virgil  represents  the  sibyl  as  foaming  and 
raging.  And  Lucian  represents  the  Priestess  as  filled 
with  fury,  her  hair  standing  on  end,  and  she  burning 
and  foaming,  and  panting  whilst  deliverini]:  her  oracle. 
Some,  even  looked  on  the  prophets  of  the  Lord  as 
mad,  and  sometimes  used  music  to  excite  prophetic 
influence.  See  2  Kings  ix.  I  J,  12:  Jer.  xxix.  26. 
The  above  are  all  the  texts  where  an  evil  spirit  is 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  is  obvious,  a 
fallen  angel,  or  real  being  is  not  meant.  But  it  is 
also  evident,  that  madness  in  Saul  is  called  an  evil 
spirit  and  an  evil  spirit  from  the  Lord.  It  is  not 
said,  that,  he  was  possessed  with  it,  that  it  was  in 
him,  but  it  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  upon  him 
and  to  have  troubled  him,  which  we  should  think  was 
about  the  same  thing. 

The  case  of  Saul,  illustrates  wliat  is  to  be  under- 
stood by  demons,  and  the  possession  of  them  in  the 
New  Testament.  There,  a  demon  and  an  evil  spirit 
evidently  mean  the  same  thing,  for  in  the  same  pas- 
sages the  one  expression  is  used  in  common  for  the 


AN    INQUIRY PART    III.  369 

Other.  Again,  Saul's  evil  spirit  was  evidently  insan- 
ity ;  and  in  the  New  Testament,  insane  persons  were 
said  to  be  possessed  with  a  demon^  or  evil  spirit, 
IVot  all  whom  our  Lord  cured,  were  said  to  be  pos- 
sessed with  a  demon,  but  only  such  as  were  more  or 
iess  deranged  in  their  minds.  This  fact,  we  think  is 
certain,  and  deserves  attention  from  all,  who  would 
correctly  understand  what  is  said  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment about  demons,  or,  evil  spirits.  It  is  also  a  fact, 
which  is  too  much  overlooked,  that  according  to  the 
person's  degree  of  insanity,  he  was  supposed  to  be 
possessed  with  the  more  demons  or  evil  spirits.  Hence 
we  read  of  persons  possessed  with  "  a  demon.  "  But 
IMary  Magdalene  had  seven  demons  in  her,  and  one 
mail  declared  he  had  a  legion  of  them  within  him. 
But  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel,  that  he  was  a  wild, 
raving  maniac.  But  again,  it  is  said,  that  Saul's, 
^'  evil  spirit  was  from  the  Lord,"  yet  nothing  like  this 
IS  said  of  persons  who  were  possessed  with  demons  in 
the  days  of  our  Lord.  But  this  difference  is  easily 
and  rationally  accounted  for,  by  a  fact  which  I  shall 
soon  notice.  The  ancient  Jews  ascribed  to  God  both 
the  good  and  evil  things  which  happened  to  them,  as 
could  easily  be  shown,  and  noticed  already  in  the  case 
of  Job.  But  we  shall  see,  thai  after  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  the  Jews  ascribed  great  and  unaccountable 
evils,  such  as  madness,  to  the  influence  of  evil  spirits. 
Before  this  period,  they  knew  nothing  about  such 
spirits,  for  their  scriptures  teach  no  such  beings. 

^'Unclean  spirit.  This  phrase,  is  only  used  once 
in  the  Old  Testament,  in  Zach.  xiii.  2.  "And  it 
sliall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
that  I  will  cut  off  the  names  of  the  idols  out  of  the 
land,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  remembered ;  and 
also  I  will  cause  the  prophets  and  the  unclean  spirit 


370  AN    INQUIRl PART    111. 

to  pass  out  of  the  land."  If  the  day  here  mentioned, 
refers  to  the  gospel  day,  as  some  think  it  does,  it  pre- 
dicts, that  then,  idols  and  the  demons  they  represented, 
Avere  to  be  done  away.  Unclean  spirit,  and  in  the 
plural  unclean  spirits,  are  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament,  Math.  xii.  43  :  Luke  xi.  M  :  Mark  i.  23, 
26  :  iii.  30  :  v.  2,  8  :  Luke  viii.  29  :  Mark  vii.  25 : 
Luke  ix.  42  :  Math.  x.  1  :  Mark  vi.  7  :  i.  27  :  Luke 
iv.  36:  Mark  iii.  11:  v.  13:  Acts  v.  16:  viii.  7: 
Rev.  xvi.  13.  The  phrase  ^^  foul  spirit/^  occurs 
Mark  ix.  25  :  Rev.  xviii.  2.  But  in  the  Greek  it  is 
the  same  "  unclean  spirit,"  as  in  the  above  passages. 
The  phrase,  in  the  New  Testament,  was  probably 
taken  from  this  passage  in  the  Old,  and  few  will  assert, 
that  it  means  there  a  fallen  anffel  or  wicked  beiuir. 
But  what  deserves  special  notice  is,  1.  that  since  the 
light  of  the  gospel  dispensation  dawned  on  the  world, 
demons,  evil  spirits,  unclean  spirits,  idolati-y,  and 
other  heathen  superstitions,  have  begun  to  wax  old 
and  to  vanish  away.  This  light  when  universally 
received  into  men's  minds,  will  banish  such  things 
from  the  earth.  We  have  referred  to  all  the  above 
texts  where  the  phrase  "  unclean  spirits  "  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible.  Let  the  reader  consult  them,  and 
observe,  what  can  hardly  escape  his  observation,  thai 
demons  are  often  called  spirits  in  the  New  Testament. 
For  example  see  Math.  viii.  16,  2.  Demons  and 
"  evil  spirits "  were  considered  the  same,  are  used 
as  synonymous  expressions  ;  for  to  cast  out  a  demon, 
was-the  same  as  to  cast  out  an  "evil  spirit,"  and  the 
supposed  power  of  the  one  was  the  same  as  that  of 
the  other.  3.  A  demon,  and  an  "  unclean  spirit " 
are  also  represented  as  the  same,  convertible  expres- 
sions denotincr  the  same  thing.  No  one  can  doubt 
this,  who  has  read  the  New  Testament,  particularly 


AN    IN(iUIKY PART    111.  871 

the  four  gospels.  For  example  in  Luke  iv.  33,  we  are 
told  of  a  man,  who  "  had  a  spirit  of  an  unclean  demon." 
4.  From  comparing  the  passages  relating  to  demons, 
^''  unclean  spirits,"  and  Beelzebub,  all  relate  to  the  same 
thing,  as  could  be  shown.  It  has  been  alleged,  that 
Beelzebub  is  the  same  as  diabolos^  the  devil  or  Satan* 
But  the  popular  belief  then  was,  that,  "  he  was  the 
prince  of  the  demons,"  and  is  the  representation  given 
in  the  New  Testament  concerning  him,  as  we  shall 
see  afterwards, 

FamUiar  spirits.  The  phrases,  '•'  familiar  spirit," 
and  "  familiar  spirits,"  occurs  in  the  following  places 
in  the  Old  Testament,  which  the  reader  can  consult  at 
his  leisure.  Levit.  xx.  27,  28.  1  Chron.  x.  13.  2 
Chron.  xxxiii.  6.  Isai.  xxix.  4.  Levit.  xix.  31,  xx. 
6.  Deut,  xviii.  II.  1  Sam.xxviii.  3,  9.  2Kingsxxi. 
6,  xxiii.  24.  Isai.  viii.  19.  xix.  3.  But  he  ought  to 
observe,  that  neither  of  these  phrases  is  used  in  the 
Netv  Testament.  One  or  two  remarks  are  sufficient  on 
all  the  above  passages,  I  shall  merely  name  the  fol- 
lowing things  which  deserve  the  readers  notice  in  the 
above  passages.  1.  Persons  who  pretended  to  have 
'*  a  familiar  spirit '^  were  to  be  banished  from  among 
the  Jews.  2.  Persons  who  consulted  with  familiar 
spirits  among  the  Jews  were  to  be  put  to  death.  Saul 
and  Manasseh  did  so,  but  their  station  in  life  saved 
ihem  from  death.  3.  The  persons  who  had  a  familiar 
spirit,  pretended  to  consult  with  and  bring  up  the 
dead.  Saul  consulted  with  the  woman  at  Endor,  that 
she  might  bring  up  Samuel  to  consult  him  in  his  dis- 
tress. 4.  Persons  who  had  a  familiar  spirit  were 
ventriloquists,  and  imposed  on  people,  making  their 
voice  to  sound  as  if  it  arose  out  of  the  ground,  as  we 
have  shewn  in  a  former  publication,  and  has  been 
shewn  by  others. 


372  A.N    INQ,UIRY PART     111. 

2.  The  apocryphal  booJcs.  In  these  books  demons 
and  evil  spirits  are  mentioned,  and  require  a  brief 
notice.  In  Baruch  iv.  7,  it  is  said — "  for  ye  provoked 
him  that  made  you  by  sacrificing  unto  devils  (flai- 
moiiiois)  and  not  to  God."  This  text  is  in  accord- 
ance with  those  ah'eady  noticed  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Jews  often  sacrificed  to  demons,  or  heathen  gods^ 
but  never  to  diaholos  the  devil,  or  to  devils,  I  may 
just  notice  here,  that  the  phrases  "  unclean  spirits" 
and  "  familiar  spirits  "  are  not  once  mentioned  in  the 
apocryphal  books.  They  were  written  after  the  cap- 
tivity in  Babylon,  and  on  the  return  of  the  Jews  from 
it,  they  were  less  given  to  idolatrous  practices  than 
before  it,  which  may  account  for  this. 

All  the  other  places,  where  demons,  or  evil  spirits, 
are  mentioned  in  the  apocryphal  books,  are,  Tobit, 
Chapters  iii.  8  :  vi.  17,  and  viii.  2,  which  the  reader 
may  consult.  But  every  child  has  read  the  story 
concerning  Asmodeus  the  evil  spirit,  and  how  the  smell 
of  the  heart  and  liver  of  a  fish  drove  him  to  the  utter- 
most parts  of  Egypt.  The  story  is  too  absurd  and 
childish  to  deserve  serious  notice.  It  deserves  notice 
however,  that  the  apocryphal  writers  seem  to  have 
believed  in  demons  or  evil  spirits,  which  the  inspired 
writers  in  the  canonical  books  did  not.  This  fact  is 
of  importance  on  the  subject  of  demons,  for  it  sliews 
when,  and  how  the  Jews  imbibed  such  opinions,  as 
the  following  quotations  admit. 

Dr.  Knapp  in  his  theology,  vol.  1.  p.  448,  thus 
writes — "  There  is  no  trace  of  a  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  evil  spirits  even  among  the  Jews,  until  the 
Babylonian  captivity."  Again,  in  p.  425,  lie  says — 
"  it  is  not  until  the  time  of  the  exile,  or  shortly  after 
it,  that  we  find  distinct  traces  of  the  doctrine,  that 
there  are  anself  who  were  once  eood,  but  who  revolt- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    III.  373 

ed  from  God,  and  are  now  become  wicked  themselves, 
and  the  authors  of  the  evil  in  the  world.  The  proba- 
bility is  therefore,  that  this  doctrine  was  first  developed 
among  the  Jews  during  their  residence  in  Chaldea  and 
shortly  afterwards."  I  might  quote  more  to  the  same 
purpose,  but  I  shall  only  add  from  pp.  465,  466. 
^'The  extravagant  opinions  which  formerly  prevailed 
on  this  subject  were  the  means  of  much  injury,  as  ap- 
pears from  experience.  They  led  the  common  people 
to  what  waS;  in  effect,  a  belief  in  two  gods — a  good 
and  an  evil  deity  ;  and  also  to  entertain  false  concep- 
tions of  the  attributes  of  the  true  God,  which  could 
not  have  been  without  a  practical  influence  on  the 
life.  They  often  furnish  a  real  hindrance  to  moral 
improvement ;  for  instance  ;  in  seeking  for  the  origin  of 
sin  in  themselves,  and  endeavoring  to  stop  its  sources 
— instead  of  becoming  acquainted  with,  and  avoiding 
the  external  occasions  of  sin,  they  laid  the  whole 
blame  of  it  upon  Satan,  and  when  they  had  made  him 
guilty,  deemed  themselves  sufficiently  justified  and  ex- 
culpated." Such  are  the  remarks  of  an  orthodox 
German  divine,  whose  work  was  translated  at  Ando- 
ver,  and  highly  approved  by  the  Professors  there.  I 
never  expected  to  see  the  day,  when  my  views  should 
receive  such  confirmation  from  such  a  source.  The 
reader  ought  to  notice,  that  Dr.  Knapp  does  not  pre- 
tend, the  Jews  had  the  doctrine  of  evil  spirits  revealed 
to  them  by  God,  at,  or  during  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity. An  important  question  then  arises — how  came 
they  to  learn  this  doctrine  ?  This  question  we  have 
answered  in  the  first  part  of  this  work  and  in  the  first 
Inquiry,  etc.  It  has  been  shewn  from  Dr.  Campbell 
and  other  writers,  that  the  Jews  brought  back  from 
their  captivity  many  opinions  not  found  in  their  sacred 
books.     Their  minds  were  corrupted  from  their  inter- 


374  AN    INQUIRY PART    111. 

course  with  the  heathen,  and  when  both  Jews  and 
heathen  were  converted  to  the  faith  of  Christ,  many 
false  heathen  notions  were  introduced  into  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  which  are  not  all  yet  purged  out.  The 
devil,  and  other  spirits,  are  of  this  number,  as  Dr. 
Knapp  admits.  In  the  above  investigation,  the  state- 
ments 1  liave  quoted  from  him,  are  strongly  confirmed, 
for  no  one  could  find  the  doctrine  of  evil  spirits  in  the 
Old  Testament,  unless  he  took  it  there  with  him. 
But  on  the  contrary  mu«:t  see,  that  demons,  evil 
spirit s,  familiar  spirits,  etc.  all  stand  condemned 
there,  and  severe  punishments  were  inflicted  on  the 
Jews  who  turned  aside  to  such  heathen  worship  and 
superstitions.  Whatever  they  knew  about  demons, 
evil  spirits,  etc.,  was  not  learned  from  their  own  scrip- 
lures,  but  from  the  heathen  around  them.  Many  of 
their  laws,  were  given  to  maintain  a  separation  of 
them  from  the  Gentile  nations.  But  after  all  those 
laws,  and  the  punishments  endured  for  the  breach  of 
them,  they  broke  over  this  partition  wall  and  learned 
the  ways  of  their  heathen  neighbors.  Much  light 
would  be  shed  on  the  subject  of  demons,  and  the  pos- 
session of  demons  in  the  New  Testament,  if  we  had  a 
full  and  perfect  account  of  the  heathen  views  on  this 
subject.  But  imperfect  as  this  is  we  shall  not  be  able 
to  use  all  the  materials  we  have  found  suited  to  our 
purpose.  We  shall  content  ourselves  with  a  few 
brief  statements. 

Enfield  in  his  Philosophy  says,  pp.  33 — 36.  '^  It 
appears,  not  only  from  the  testimony  af  Diodorus,  but 
from  other  ancient  authorities  collected  by  Eusebius 
that  the  Chaldeans  believed  in  God,  the  Lord  and 
Parent  of  all,  by  whose  providence  the  world  is  gov- 
erned. And  indeed  without  this  it  is  impossible  to 
conceive,  how  their  religious  rites  should   ever  have 


AN  INQUIRY PART  III.  375 

arisen  :  for  the  immediate  object  of  these  rites  was  a 
supposed  race  of  spiritual  beings  or  demons,  whose 
existence  could  not  have  been  imagined,  without  first 
conceiving  the  idea  of  a  supreme  being  the  source  of 
all  inteUigence.  Besides  the  supreme  being,  the 
Chaldeans  supposed  spiritual  beings  to  exist,  of  seve- 
ral orders,  gods,  demons,  heroes.  These  they  proba- 
bly divided  into  subordinate  classes,  as  their  practice 
of  theology,  or  magic  required.  The  ancient  eastern 
nations  in  general,  and  among  the  rest  the  Chaldeans, 
admitted  the  existence  of  certain  evil  spirits,  clothed 
in  habilitnents  of  gross  matter,  and  in  subduing  or 
counteracting  these,  they  placed  a  great  part  of  the 
efficacy  of  their  religious  incantations.  The  magic 
which  the  Chaldean  Zoroaster  invented,  was  probably 
nothing  more  than  the  performance  of  certain  religious, 
ceremonies,  by  means  of  which  good  demons  were 
supposed  to  be  prevailed  upon  to  communicate  super- 
natural properties  to  herbs,  stones,  and  other  natural 
bodies,  or  to  afibrd  assistance,  in  other  miraculous 
ways,  to  those  who  invoked  them.  In  war,  it  was 
supposed  that  by  the  help  of  magic  the  forces  of  an 
enemy  might  be  routed,  or  an  army  struck  with  a 
general  panic,  as  is  said  to  have  liappened  to  Ninus 
in  his  war  with  the  Bactrians.  Notwithstanding  the 
obscurity  with  which  antiquity  has  covered  the  Chal- 
dean philosophy,  it  has  been  highly  extolled,  not  only 
by  the  Orientalists  and  Greeks,  but  by  Jewish  and 
Christian  writers."  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the 
Jews  spent  seventy  years  in  Babylon,  and  brought 
back  from  their  captivity  there,  many  of  the  heathen 
opinions  of  the  people  as  is  universally  admitted. 
Concerning  the  Celts,  Enfield  says  p.  94 — "  that  they 
imagined  the  magnificent  and  gloomy  scenes  of  nature 
to   be  inhabited    by  demons,  fully  appears   from  the 


376  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

Edda.  Nor  can  any  other  reason  be  assigned  for  the 
superstitious  notion  which  prevailed  among  them,  than 
that  these  scenes  were  frequently  the  seat  of  oracular 
communications."  On  p.  81  he  says — "  the  doctrine 
of  an  eiherial  intelligence  pervading  and  animating  the 
material  world,  appears,  among  the  Egyptians,  to  have 
been  from  the  earliest  time  accompanied  with  a  belief 
in  inferior  divinities.  Conceiving  emanations  from  the 
divinity,  to  be  resident  in  various  parts  of  nature,  when 
they  saw  life,  motion,  and  enjoyment  communicated 
to  the  inhabitants  ol  the  earth  from  the  sun,  and,  as 
they  supposed,  from  other  heavenly  bodies,  they  as- 
cribed these  effects  to  the  influence  of  certain  divini- 
ties, derived  from  the  first  deity,  which  they  supposed 
to  inhabit  these  bodies.  Hence  arose  their  worship 
of  the  sun,  under  the  name  of  Osiris,  Amon,  and 
Horus,  etc.  From  the  same  source  it  may  be  easily 
conceived,  that,  among  the  Egyptians  as  well  as  in 
other  nations,  would  arise  the  worship  of  deified  men, 
such  as  illustrious  heroes,  legislators,  or  improvers  of 
human  life  by  useful  inventions  and  institutions. 
Hence  they  concluded  that  a  large  portion  of  that 
divinity,  which  animates  all  things  resided  in  them, 
and  supposed  that  after  death,  'the  good  demon  that 
animated  them  passed  into  the  society  of  the  divinities. 
Enfield  informs  us,  p.  256,  that  Xenocrates  taught 
— "  the  heavens  are  divine,  and  the  stars  celestial 
gods  ;  and  that  besides  these  divinities,  there  are 
terrestrial  demons,  of  a  middle  order  between  the  gods 
and  men,  which  partake  of  the  nature  both  of  mind 
and  body,  and  are  therefore,  like  human  beings,  capa- 
ble of  passions,  and  liable  to  diversity  of  character. 
Like  Plato  he  probably  thought,  the  inferior  gods  or 
demons,  to  be  derived  from  the  soul  of  the  world,  and 
like  that  principle,  to  be  compounded  of  a  simple  and 


AN  INQUIRY PART  III.  377 

divisable  substance."  On  page  356,  he  says'— "  de- 
mons were  divided  into  superior  and  inferior  :  the 
superior,  those  which  inhabited  the  sun  and  stars, 
which  they  considered  as  animated  substances  ;  the 
inferior,  human  souls  separated  from  the  body,  or 
heroes,  illustrious  men  says  Cicero,  whose  souls  sur-* 
vive  and  enjoy  immortality  are  justly  esteemed  to  be 
gods,  since  they  are  of  an  excellent  and  immortal 
nature.  And,  p.  420,  we  are  told— "  subordinate  to 
the  deity,  it  was  taught  in  the  Italic  school,  that  there 
are  three  orders  of  intelligences,  gods,  demons,  heroes^ 
who  are  distinguished  by  their  respective  degrees  of 
excellence  and  dignity,  and  by  the  nature  of  the 
homage  which  is  due  to  them  ;  gods  being  to  be  pre=' 
ferred  in  honour  of  demi-gods  Or  demons,  and. demons 
to  heroes,  or  men.  These  three  orders,  in  the  Pytha- 
gorean system,  were  emanations  at  different  degrees  of 
proximity  from  the  supreme  intelligence,  the  particles 
of  subtle  ether  assuming  a  grosser  clothing  the  farther 
they  receded  from  the  fountain*  The  third  order,  or 
heroes,  were  supposed  to  be  invested  with  a  subtle 
material  clothing.  If  to  these  three  species  we  add  a 
fourth,  the  human  mind,  we  have  the  whole  scale  of 
divine  emanation,  as  it  was  conceived  by  this  sect  of 
Philosophers."  Other  heathen  Philosophers  might 
be  quoted  who  held  similar  opinions,  and  will  be 
referred  to  in  the  course  of  oar  investigation.  It  is 
evident  from  these  statements  that  the  heathen  had 
abundance  o^  demons  and  various  kinds  of  them. 

In  the  preceding  remarks,  we  have  said  but  little, 
as  to  the  meaning  given  the  words  daimon  and  dai- 
monion,  but  shall  now  introduce  what  orthodox  Lexi- 
cographers and  others  say  concerning  them. 

'•  1.  Daimon.'^  Parkhurst  says,  it  means,  "1.  A 
demon,  an    intelligience.     Its   senses   in   the  heathen 


378  AN  INaUIRY PART  III. 

writers  may  be  seen  under  daimonion  first  and  second, 
besides  which  it  sometimes  signifies  fortune,  sometimes 
an  attendant  genius."  He  says  "  2.  In  the  New 
Testament  it  is  used  only  for  an  evil  spirit,  a  fallen 
angel."  But  so  far  from  pioducing  proof  of  this,  he 
adds  to  the  contrary — -"the  seventy's  version  of  Isai. 
xiii.  21,  where  the  Hebrew  shorim,  rough  ;  hairy  crea- 
tures, is  rendered  by  daimonia  demons,  agreeably  to 
the  heathen  notions,  that  their  demons,  such  as  Pan, 
the  Fawns,  Satyrs,  etc.  appeared  in  the  shape  of 
rough,  shaggy  animals."  Parkhurst,  here  comfirms, 
what  was  said  above  on  some  texts  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. He  says  "  Rev.  xviii.  2,  seems  an  illusion  to 
the  seventy's  version  of  Isai.  xiii.  21"  and  shews  the 
New  Testament  writers  used  daimon  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament sense  o(  daimonia,  which  in  no  instance  refers 
to  fallen  anj^els.  Tt  would  be  strans^e  indeed,  if  the 
New  Testament  writers  differed  so  much  from  the 
Old,  as  to  make  demons  fallen  angels,  yet  give  us  no 
account  of  so  great  an  alteration,  for  we  have  seen 
the  Jews  knew  nothing  about  evil  spirits  until  the 
Babylonian  captivity.  When,  pray,  were  demons 
converted  into  evil  spirits?     But  let  us  hear  him  on, 

"  2.  Daim,onionJ^  Parkhurst  says,  it  signifies  ''  1.  A 
deity,  a  god,  or  more  accurately  some  power  or  sup- 
posed intelligence  in  tliat  grand  object  of  heathen 
idolatry,  the  material  heavens  or  air.  Thus  the  word 
is  geneially  applied  by  the  seventy  who  use  it,  Isai. 
Ixxv.  1 1,  for  god,  the  destructive  troop,  or  powers  of 
the  heavens,  in  thunder,  liiihtning,  storm,  etc.  In 
Dent,  xxxii,  17  ;  Psal.  cv.  35,  for  sedim,  the  pourers 
forth,  or  genial  powers  of  nature  ;  and  as  by  daimon' 
iou  mestmnou,  the  mid-day  demon,  Psal.  xci.  6,  we 
may  be  certain  they  intended  not  a  devil,  but  a  per- 
nicious blast  of  air.    (Comp,  Isai.  xxviii,  2,  in  the  He- 


AN   INQUIRY- — PART  III.  379 

bi'ew,)  so   from  this  and  the  fore-cited   passages,  we 
can  be  at  no  loss  to  know  what  they  meant,  when  in 
their  translation  of  Psal.  xcvi.  5,  they   say — All  the 
gods  of  the  Gentiles  are  daimonia,  i.  e.  not  devils  but 
some  powers  or  imaginary   intelligences   of  material 
nature.     But  it  must  be  observed,  that  according  to 
the  hiirhly  probable  opinion  of  that  learned  Jew,  Mai- 
monides,  the  error  of  the  first  idolaters  consisted  in 
their   maintaining,  that,  as   the  stars  and  planets,  to 
which  I  think  we  should  add  the  circulating  fluid  of 
the   heavens,   were  created    by   God    to    govern  the 
world,  so  it  was  his   pleasure,  that  they  should   be 
honored    and  worshipped  as  his   ministers,  and    that 
accordingly  men  proceeded  to  adore  them,  in  order  to 
procure  the  good  will  of  Him  who  created  them,  thus 
making  them   mediators   between   men  and  God,  and 
this,  says   he,  was  the   foundation   of  idolatry,  which 
assertion   is  amply  confirmed   by  the   plain   traces  of 
this  doctrine   being   found   among   the   heathen,  even 
down   to  the  time  of  Christ  and  his   Apostles,  and 
indeed   long  after.     Most   express   are  the  words  of 
Plato — '■  every  demon  is  a  middle  being  between  God 
and  mortal   man.'     If  you   ask  what  he  means  by  a 
middle  being,  he  will  tell  you — '  God  is  not  approach- 
ed  immediately   by  man,  but  all   the   commerce  and 
intercourse   between   gods  and   men,  is   performed  by 
the  mediation  of  demons.''     Would  you  see  the   par- 
ticulai's  ?     ^Demons    are   reporters    and  carriers  from 
men  to  the  gods,  and   again  from   the  gods  to  men,  of 
the  supplications  and  prayers  of  the  one,  and  of  the 
injunctions   and  rewards  of  devotion  from  the  other.' 
The  Philosopher  Plutarch,  who  flourished  at  the  be- 
ginning, and  of  Apuleius,  who  lived  after  the  middle 
of  tho  second  century,  teach  the  same  doctrine.     j\nd 
this  says  the  learned  Mede  was  the  ecumenical  phi- 


380 


AN  INQUIRY PART  111, 


losophy  of  the  Apostles'  times,  and  of  the  times  long 
before  them.  Thales  and  Pythagoras,  all  the  acade- 
mics and  Stoics,  and  not  many  to  be  excepted,  unless 
the  Epicures,  taught  this  divinity.  Now,  when  Paul  af- 
firms, 1  Cor.  X.  20,  that  what  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they 
sacrifice  daimoniois,  not  to  God,  we  may  understand 
daimonia  to  mean  either  some  powers  or  supposed 
intelligences  of  material  nature  in  general,  or,  in  a 
more  confined  sense,  according  to  the  common  opin- 
ion of  the  Gentiles  in  his  time,  such  powers  or  intelli- 
gences considered  as  mediators  between  the  supreme 
God  and  mortal  m(!n.  'For  this'  says  Mr.  Mede 
*was  then  the  very  tenet  of  the  Gentiles,  that  the 
sovereign  and  celestial  gods  were  to  be  \vorship])ed 
only  with  the  pure  mind,  and  with  hymns  and  praises; 
and  that  sacrifices  were  only  for  demons.'  I  will  not, 
however,  take  upon  me  positively  to  affirm,  that  Paul 
had  in  view  this  latter  tenet  of  heathenism  in  the 
above  passage.  It  is  sufficient  to  prove  his  assertion, 
that  the  general  objects  to  which  the  Gentile  sacrifices 
were  offered,  were  nothing  higher  than  some  powers 
of  material  nature,  or  some  intelligences  supposed  to 
reside  therein  ;  than  this,  nothing  can  be  more  cer- 
tain, from  all  accounts  sacred  and  profane.  And  thus 
daimojiion  is  used  I  Cor.  x.  20,  21. 

2.  Besides  these  original  daimonia,  those  material 
mediators,  or  the  intelligences  residing  in  them,  whom 
Apuleius  calls  a  higher  kind  of  demons,  who  were 
always  free  from  th(i  incumbrances  of  the  body,  and 
out  of  which  higher  order  Plato  supposes  guardians 
were  appointed  unto  men,^ — besides  thes^,  the  heathen 
acknowledired  another  sort,  namely  the  souls  of  men 
deified  or  canonized  after  death.  So  Hesiod,  one  of 
the  most  ancient  heathen  writers,  describing  that 
happy  raee  of  men  who  lived  ih  the  first  and  golden 


AN    INQUIRY PART    111.  381 

age  of  the  world,  saith,  that  after  this  generation  were 
dead,  they  were  by  tl]e  will  of  great  Jupiter  promoted 
to  be  demons,  kee[)ers  of  mortal  men,  observers  of 
their  good  and  evil  works,  clothed  in  air,  always  walk- 
ing about  the  earth,  givers  of  riches  ;  and  this,  saith 
he,  is  the  royal  honour  that  they  enjoy.'  Plato  con- 
curs with  Hesiod,  and  asserts  that  '  he  and  many  other 
poets  speak  excellently,  who  affirm,  that  when,  good 
men  die,  they  attain  great  honour  and  dignity,  and 
become  demons.'  The  same  Plato  in  another  place 
maintains,  that  '  all  those  who  die  vahantly  in  war  are 
of  Hesiods  golden  generation,  and  are  made  demons, 
and  that  we  ought  forever  after  to  serve  and  adore 
their  sepulchres  as  the  sepulchres  of  demons.  The 
same  also,  says  he,  we  decree  whenever  any  of  those 
who  vv'ere  excellently  good  in  life,  die  either  of  old 
age,  or  in  any  other  manner.'  And  according  to  this 
notion  of  daimonion,  the  word  appears  to  be  applied 
in  several  passages  of  the  New  Testament.  Thus 
Acts  xvii.  18,  some  of  the  Athenians  said  of  Paul,  he 
seemeth  to  be  a  proclaimer  of  strange  demons — gods, 
because  he  preached  unto  them  Jesus  and  the  resur- 
rection. In  the  similar  sense  of  demon-gods,  or  souls 
of  dead  men  deified  or  canonized,  the  word  is  used 
Rev.  ix.  20,  and  in  the  expression  doctrines  concern- 
ing demons  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  as  doctrine  concerning  bap- 
tisms, Heb.  vi.  2  ;  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Lord, 
Acts  xiii.  12.  For  proof  I  refer  to  Mr.  Mede  and 
Bishop  Newton,  and  to  what  they  have  adduced  on 
this  subject  shall  only  add,  that  Ignatius,  who,  accord- 
ing to  Crysostom,  had  conversed  familiarly  with  the 
Apostles,  plainly  uses  daimonion  for  a  human  spirit 
or  ghost,  and  the  adjective  daimonikos  for  one  disem- 
bodied, and  in  the  state  of  spirits."  But  Parkhurst 
sayS)  daimonion  means  "  3,  and  most  generally,  an 
U5 


382  AN   liNQUIKY FART   III. 

evil  spirit,  a  devil,  one  of  those  angels  who  kept  not 
their  first  estate,  and  are  called  by  the  collective  name 
satan,  and  diabolos  the  devil."  But  all  the  proof  he 
gives  of  this  is,  a  reference  to  some  texts  without  note 
or  comment  upon  then),  and  to  the  book  of  Tobit. 
Here  he  spoke  from  his  prejudice  in  favour  of  the 
popular  opinions  ;  for  not  in  a  single  instance  is  dia- 
bolos  called  a  demon  in  the  Bible,  or  a  demon  diabo- 
los; nor  are  the  two  names  confounded,  as  if  they  meant 
the  same  thing.  And  where  is  it  intimated  that  a 
demon  was  a  fallen  angel  ?  What  he  has  said  above, 
is  at  variance  with  such  a  sentiment.  Had  he  found 
a  single  text,  from  which  he  could  have  proved,  that 
a  demon  was  an  evil  spirit,  saton,  diabolos,  or  the 
devil,  no  doubt  that  he  would  have  done  it.     But 

3.  On  the  word  '^  daimonizomai^^  he  says,  it  means 
~  "  to  be  possessed  by  a  demon.  It  is  the  same  as — 
daimon  chein  to  have  a  demon,  or  devil,  John  vii.  '20. 
Those  who  were  possessed  with  prophesying  demons, 
Actsxvi.  IGwere  called  by  the  Greeks  daimenoleptoi. 
See  Archbishop  Potter's  Antiquities  of  Greece.  In 
the  New  Testament  the  w^ord  daimoniodcs  occurs 
only  once,  viz.  in  James  iii.  15,  and  is  rendered  in 
our  common  version  devilish.  Parkhurst  makes  no 
remarks  on  it,  nor  does  it  require  any  particular  notice. 

Such  is  Parkhurst's  account  of  demons  ;  and  it  is 
obvious,  how  much  it  agrees  with  what  is  said  in  the 
Old  Testament  about  demons.  How  he  reconciled 
this  account  with  his  bare  statement,  that  demons  were 
fallen  angels  I  know  not,  for  he  does  not  attempt  it, 
and  I  feel  assured  that  it  never  can  be  done.  The  pas- 
sages he  refers  to  in  the  New  Testunent  are,  Math, 
viii.  31  ;  Mark  v.  12;  Luke  vili,  29  ;  Rev.  xvi.  14, 
and  the  reader  can  consult  them.  They  will  be  con- 
sidered in  the  sequel.      In   passing  we  shall  only  say. 


AN     INQUIRY— PART    Hi.  383 

such  texts  can  never  prove  demons  to  ha  J  alien  migels 
in  opposition  to  all  he  has  said  to  the  contrary,  and 
what  he  has  said,  is  for  substance  what  others  have 
said  before  him. 

We  come  now,  to  an  examination  of  the  New  Tes-^ 
lament  respecting  demons  and  of  persons  being  pos- 
sessed with  them.  But  we  ought  to  come  to  it,  in 
full  view  of  the  light  given  us  on  the  subject  from  the 
Old  Testament,  the  apocryphal  books,  and  other 
writers  we  have  quoted  above.  Nor,  should  the  in- 
disputable fact  be  forgotten,  which  is  stated  by  Dr. 
Knapp,  that  evil  spirits  were  not  known  among  the 
Jews  until  the  Babylonian  captivity.  It  is  certain, 
as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Jews  knew  about  demons 
long  before  this  period,  for  they  sacrificed  their  sons 
and  daughters  to  them.  Wlio  then  converted  them 
into  evil  spirits,  and  instructed  them,  that  they  could 
.possess  men's  bodies  and  inflict  disordei^  upon  them? 
How,  and  by  whom  was  this  great  change  in  demon<5 
effected  ?  No  change  was  effected  in  them  ;  the 
change  was  in  the  Jews,  in  adopting  the  popular 
opinions  which  then  prevailed  about  demons.  And  I 
shall  show  this  from  facts  which  we  think  cannot  be 
disputed. 

1.  It  is  a  fact  that  demons  are  never  spoken  of 
as  evil  spirits  in  the  New  Testament,  except  in  con- 
nexion with  disorders  which  popular  heathen  notions 
had  ascribed  to  them.  All  diseases  v/ere  not  imputed 
to  demons  or  evil  spirits  as  is  obvious  from  the  four 
gospels,  but  such  as  were  strange,  difficult  to  account 
for,  incurable  or  very  difficult  to  cure  ;  such  as  mad- 
ness, epilepsy,  etc.  This  we  shall  see  afterwards,  and 
is  a  fact  which  we  think  few  will  dispute. 

2,  It  is  also  a  fact,  that  the  New  Testament  wri- 
tersj  never  intimatej  ih^v demons  in  their  day.  were  to 


384  AN    INQUIRE PART    IIL 

be  understood  differently  from  what  they  were  in  the 
days  of  Moses  and  the  propliets — that  anciently  they 
were  heathen  gods,  imaginary  beings,  but  now  had 
become  evil  spirits  to  inflict  disorders  on  men.  They 
indeed  speak  of  persons  under  certain  disorders  as 
being  possessed  with  demons,  but  aside  from  such 
cases,  they  never  assert  demons  to  be  real  beings  of 
any  kind,  that  could  injure  any  person  either  in  body 
or  mind.     On  the  contrary  it  is 

3,  An  indisputable  fact  that  when  they  speak  of 
demons  aside  from  diseased  persons  they  speak  of 
them  as  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  did  before 
them.  As  these  facts  are  of  importance,  in  examin- 
ing the  New  Testament  respecting  demons,  I  shall 
first  introduce  the  texts  in  it  which  prove  the  last  fact, 
and  do  it  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner.  When  this 
is  done,  much  is  accomplislied,  showing  that  demons 
in  the  New  Testament  were  not  evil  spirits  or  fallen 
angels  any  more  than  in  the  Old.  The  passages  I 
quote  are  the  following. 

1  Cor.  X.  20,  21.  '^  But  I  say,  that  the  things 
which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  demons, 
and  not  to  God  ;  and  1  woidd  not  that  ye  should  have 
fellowship  with  demons.  Ye  cannot  drink  the  cup  of 
the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  demons  :  ye  cannot  be  par- 
takers of  the  Lord's  table,  and  the  table  of  demons^' 
The  Gentiles  did  not  sacrifice  either  to  the  true  God 
or  diabolos  the  devil.  Macknight  says — "  they  sacri- 
ficed to  demons.  The  word  daimonia,  demons,  is 
used  in  the  seventy  to  denote  the  ghosts  of  men  de- 
ceased ;  and  Josephus,  Bell.  lib.  7.  c.  6  says  demons 
are  the  spwits  of  wicked  men.  It  is  therefore  proba- 
ble, that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  used  the 
word  demon  in  the  same  sense,  especially  as  it  is  well 
known,  that  the  greatest   part  of  tbe  heathen  gods 


AN  INQUIRY PART  HI.  385 

were  dead  men.  The  heathen  worshipped  two  kinds 
of  demons,  the  one  kind  were  the  souls  of  kings  and 
heroes  deified  after  death,  but  who  could  have  no 
agency  in  human  affairs.  The  other  kind  of  demons, 
were  those  evil  spirits,  who  under  the  names  of  Jupi- 
ter, Apollo,  Trophonius,  etc.  moving  the  heathen 
priests  and  priestesses  to  deliver  oracles,  greatly  pro- 
moted idolatry.  The  heathen  in  general,  had  no  idea 
cf  God  ;  that  is,  of  an  unoriginated,  eternal,  immuta- 
ble, and  infinitely  perfect  being,  the  creator  and  gov- 
ernor of  all  things.  In  the  lieathen  sacrifices,  the 
priests,  before  they  poured  the  wine  upon  the  victim, 
tasted  it  themselves  ;  then  carried  it  to  the  offerers, 
and  to  those  who  came  with  them,  that  they  also, 
inight  taste  it,  as  joining  in  the  sacrifice,  and  receiving 
benefits  from  it — of  the  table  of  demons  ;  that  is,  of 
the  sacrifice  offered  to  demons,  which  was  eaten  on  a 
table  in  the  demons  temple.'^  I  add  from  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, who  says — "  Now  in  regard  to  idols,  the  Apostle 
had  said  in  the  same  epistle,  1  Cor.  viii.  4,  that  an 
idol  is  nothing  in  the  world  ;  in  other  v/ords,  is  the 
representation  of  an  imaginary  being.  It  is  as  much 
as  to  say,  Jupiter,  and  Juno,  and  Saturn,  and  all  the 
rest  of  the  heathen  gods,  as  delineated  by  the  poets 
and  mythologists,  are  nonenities,  the  mere  creatures 
of  imagination."  He  adds,  "  besides,  a  great  part  of 
ihe  heathen  worship  was  confessedly  paid  to  the 
ghosts  of  departed  heroes,  of  conquerors,  and  poten- 
tates, and  of  the  inventors  of  arts,  whom  popular 
superstition,  after  disguising  their  history  with  fables 
and  absurdities  blindly  deified.  Now,  to  all  such 
beings,  they  themselves,  as  well  as  the  Jews  assigned 
the  name  demoniac  I  ask,  can  any  thing  he  more 
clear  and  conclusive  than  this,  that  demons  in  Paul's 
day  were   the  same   as   those  mentioned  in  the  Old 


386  AN  INq,UIRY PART  III. 

Testament  ?  But  if  any  one  should  assert  that  they 
are  different  we  call  for  the  proof  of  it. 

Acts  xvii.  18.  '•  He  seemeth  to  be  a  setter  forth  of 
strange  gods  :  because  he  preached  unto  ihem  Jesus 
and  the  resurrection."  This,  I  believe,  is  the  only 
place  in  the  New  Testament  where  daimonia  is  ren- 
dered gods..  The  Athenians,  seem  to  have  supposed, 
that  Paul  preached  Jesus  as  one  s^od,  and  the  resur- 
rection as  another,  and  deemed  them  as  new  and 
strange  gods  at-Athens,  as  the  heathen  gods  were  to 
the  Jews  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  no- 
ticed already.  Had  the  translators  of  our  English 
version,  rendered  here  as  they  have  done  in  other 
places,  they  would  have  made  the  Athenians  say, 
Paul  was  a  "  setter  forth  of  strange  devils."  I  wish 
they  had  done  so,  for  it  would  have  led  people  to 
reflect,  if  the  term  devils  was  a  correct  rendering  in 
other  passages  where  daimonia  occurs.  The  word 
daimonia  in  this  text,  is  used  in  a  good  sense,  being 
applied  to  the  souls  of  men  deified  or  canonized  after 
death  at  Athens,  This  remark  applies  also  to  other 
texts  which  could  be  shown  w^ere  it  necessary.  But 
whether  the  Athenians,  deemed  their  gods  or  demons 
good  or  bad,  Paul  did  not  admit  them  to  be  beings  of 
any  kind  whatever.  On  the  contrary  his  "spirit  was 
stirred  within  him  when  he  saw  their  city  wholly 
given  to  idolatry."  The  next  three  texts  I  shall 
quote  at  once  as  they  are  veiy  similar,  and  like  the 
preceding  shew  the  demons  of  the  New  Testament  to 
be  the  same  as  in  the  Old. 

Rev.  ix.  20.  "  And  the  rest  of  the  men  which  were 
not  killed  by  those  plagues  yet  repented  not  of  the 
works  of  their  hands,  that  they  should  not  worship 
demons  and  idols  of  gold,"  etc.  Rev.  xvi.  14.  "For 
ihey  are  the  spirits  o( demons,  working  miracles,"  etc. 


AN  INQUIRY PART  III.  387 

And  xvlii.  2.  "Babylon  the  great  is  fallen,  and  is  be- 
come the  habitation  of  demons^^  etC;  Neither  hea- 
thens, nor  Christians  worshipped  diabohi  devils,  that  I 
can  find.  And  who  can  believe,  that  demons  the  im- 
aginary gods  of  the  heathen  could  work  miracles  •* 
And,  did  Babylon  become,  ''  the  habitation"  of  either 
devils  or  demons  ?  But  all  must  perceive  the  simi- 
larity of  the  statements  in  these  texts  to  some  of  the 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  wdiich  have  been  con- 
sidered above.  It  seems  Babylon  has  been  famous 
as  a  habitation  of  demons  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times,  and  demons  also  famous  for  working  miracles. 
What  demons  were,  worshipped  by  Jews  and  hea- 
thens, we  have  seen  already,  so  far  from  being  gods, 
evil  spirits,  or  fallen  angels,  they  were  lying  vanities 
and  could  not  save  them  that  trusted  in  them. 

1  Tim,  iv.  1.  "Giving  heed  to  deceiving  spirits 
and  doctrines  concerning  demons."  This  is  Mac- 
kniglit's  version,  and  in  a  note  he  says — "  the  word 
translated  demons  was  used  by  the  Greeks,  to  denote 
a  kind  of  beings  of  a  middle  nature  between  God  and 
man.  See  on  1  Cor.  x.  20,  21.  They  gave' the 
name  also,  to  the  souls  of  some  departed  men,  who 
they  thought  were  exalted  to  the  state  and  honour  of 
demons  for  their  virtue.  See  Newton  on  the  prophe- 
cies vol.  ii.  p.  418.  The  former  sort  they  called 
superior  demons,  and  supposed  them  to  have  the 
nature  and  office  which  we  ascribe  to  angels.  The 
latter  they  termed  inferior  demons.  They  were  of 
the  same  character  with  the  Romish  saints,  and  both 
sorts  were  worshipped  as  mediators.  When  therefore 
the  spirit  of  God  foretold  in  an  audible  manner,  that 
in  after  times,  many  would  give  heed  to  deceiving 
spirits,  and  to  doctrines  concerning  demons,  he  fore- 
told, that  on  the  authority  of  feigned  revelation,  many 


388  AN    INQUIRY PART    llf. 

in  the  Church  would  receive  the  doctrine  concerning 
the  worship  of  angels  and  saints,  and  praying  of  souls 
out  of  puri^atory  ;  and  called  it  the  doctrine  of  de- 
mons, because  it  was  in  reality  the  same  with  the 
ancient  heathenish  worship  of  demons,  as  mediators 
between  the  gods  and  men."  The  souls  of  men, 
canonized  after  death,  are  modern  demons,  are  media- 
tors between  God  and  men,  and  like  the  ancient  de- 
mons have  been  supposed  to  heal  men  and  inflict 
disorders  upon  them,  as  they  felt  disposed.  Chris- 
tians in  modern  times,  are  not  free  from  the  worship 
of  demons.  Wherein  lies  the  great  difference,  of  pay- 
ing devotion  to  the  ghost  of  a  dead  canonized  saint, 
and  an  ancient  deifi(>d  hero  ?  And  is  it  not  as  easy, 
to  pray  souls  out  of  purgatory  as  to  reform  them  in 
hell  ?  If  christians  made  themselves  better  acquaint- 
ed with  their  Bible,  and  also  with  ancient  heathen 
opinions,  they  would  see,  that  it  is  the  heathen  notions 
which  have  been  blended  with  Christianity,  that  have 
produced  the  endless  divisions  among  them.  They 
would  see,  that  some  of  their  darling  dogmas  were 
derived  from  the  heathen,  and  are  even  expressed  in 
heathen  phraseology.  Demons  or  evil  spirits,  is  but  a 
small  part  of  what  Christians  have  borrowed  from  the 
heathen  as  I  have  attempted  to  show  in  this  work  and 
in  other  publications. 

We  have  seen  elsewhere,  that  to  have  a  demon 
and  be  possessed  with  a  demon  means  the  same  thing. 
Thus,  the  Jews  said  of  Christ 

John  X.  20,  '21 — '•  he  hath  a  demon  and  is  mad, 
why  hear  ye  him  ?  others  said  these  are  not  the  words 
of  him  that  hath  a  dejnon,  can  a  demon  open  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  ?"  On  this  passage  the  improved  version 
says — "observe,  these  words  express  cause  and  effect, 
the  disease  is  insanity  ,  the  supposed  cause  is  posses- 


AN  INQUIRY PART  III.  389 

sion  by  a  demon,  or  human  ghost,  than  which  no 
supposition  can  be  more  absurd  ;  but  it  was  the  phi- 
losophy of  the  age."  See  also  John  vii.  '20.  And 
viii.  40 — 53,  where  similar  charges  are  brought  against 
the  Saviour  which  I  need  not  quote.  If  to  have  a 
demon  and  being  mad  express  cause  and  effect,  as 
seems  to  be  true,  our  Lord's  own  relations  stated  the 
effect  without  naming  the  supposed  cause,  for  they 
said  concerning  him,  he — ''is  beside  himself."  They 
probably  said  this,  from  his  teachings  and  actions 
being  so  different  from  that  of  others,  and  so  contrary 
to  their  wishes. 

Matt.  xi.  18,  says  concerning  John  Baptist  "  for 
John  came  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  and  they  say 
he  hath  a  demon.'''  It  is  repeated,  Luke  vii.  33,  and 
need  not  be  quoted.  Dr.  Lighlfoot  observes — "  that 
it  was  customary  for  tlie  Jews  to  attribute  to  evil 
spirits  certain  great  disorders,  which  either  distorted 
the  body  or  occasioned  phrenzy  or  distraction  of  the 
mind."  It  seems  that,  John  like-the  Saviour  was  deemed 
deranged  in  his  mind  ;  and  his  appearance  and  man- 
ner of  life  perhaps  led  people  to  draw  this  conclusion. 
His  raiment  was  of  camel's  hair,  he  had  a  girdle  of 
leather  about  his  loins,  his  meat  was  locusts  and  wild 
honey,  and  he  frequented  the  wilderness,  to  which 
melancholy,  or  mad  people  resorted.  Josephus  says 
that  '^^  demoniacs  were  possessed  by  the  spirits  of  bad 
men,"  and  such  seems  to  have  been  the  demons  the 
Jews  ascribed  to  John  and  Jesus.  It  is  said,'  the 
demons  mentioned  in  scripture  w^ere  all  understood  in 
a  bad  sense  by  the  father's  of  the  Church.  But  to 
this  we  think  there  a,re  some  exceptions,  as  could  be 
shown,  if  it  were  necessary.  It  could  also  be  showrt 
that  the  ch:irge  against  John  and  Jesus,  that  they  had 
a  demon  was  not  general,  for  we   are  told,  "  others 


390  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

said,  these  are  not  the  words  of  him  that  hath  a 
demon,  can  a  demon  open  the  eyes  of  the  bhnd  ?  " 
The  common  sense  of  people  told  them,  that  the 
charge  was  false  against  the  Saviour.  But,  there 
was  something  so  unaccountable  about  both,  so  differ- 
ent from  other  persons,  that  according  to  the  popufar 
opinions  of  tbe  age,  that  they  imputed  it  to  being  pos- 
sessed with  a  demon. 

But  the  following  statements  deserve,  particular 
notice,  for  they  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  posses- 
sions of  demons  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. 
'^The  region  of  the  air  was  supposed  by  the  Pytha- 
goreans to  be  full  of  spirits,  demons,  or  horoes,  who 
cause  sickness  or  health  to  man  or  beast,  and  com- 
municate at  their  pleasure,  by  means  of  dreams,  and 
other  instruments  of  divination,  the  knowledge  of 
future  events.  That  Pythagoras  himself  held  this 
opinion  can  not  be  doubted,  if  it  be  true,  as  his  biog- 
raphers relate,  that  he  professed  to  cure  diseases  by 
incantations.  It  is  probable  that  he  derived  it  from 
the  Egyptians,  among  whom  it  was  believed  that 
many  diseases  were  caused  by  demonical  posses- 
sions." Enfield  p.  421.  Tertullian  says,  '' demons — 
inflict  upon  men's  bodies  diseases  ;  and  are  the  pe- 
culiar authors  of  some  sorts  of  very  grievous  misclian- 
ces  ;  but  as  to  the  soul,  they  are  the  authors  of  men's 
going  suddenly  and  extraordinarily  beside  themselves. 
The  subtility  and  fineness  of  their  make,  enables  them 
to  enter  into  both  the  body  and  soul  of  men."  But, 
how  could  he  know  all  this  ?  Who  ever  saw  a 
demon  ?  And  what  Scripture  writer  describes  the 
"fineness  of  their  make?"  Tertullian,  and  many 
others  have  believed  demons  to  be  evil  spirits,  but 
this  opinion  was  derived  from  the  heathen,  and  not 
divine  revelation,  and  their  notions  about  them  were 


AN  INQ,UIRY PART  III.  391 

mere  suppositions.     Who  told  them^  demons  inflicted 
diseases  on   men  ? 

Several  disorders,  were  attributed  to  the  heathen 
deities  as  the  cause  of  them,  but  were  mere  imaginary 
beings,  or,  as  Paul  declares,  Avere  "  nothing  in  the 
worlds  And  if  they  bad  been  real  beings,  as  many 
have  supposed,  who  has  ever  proved,  or  can  prove, 
that  they  produced  such  disorders?  What  sacred 
writer  has  said  they  did  ?  The  Epilepsy  was  impu- 
ted to  Apollo,  but  who  can  prove  that  he  v/as  the 
cause  of  this  disorder,  or  had  any  power  over  men  ? 
The  Romans  as  well  as  the  Greeks,  imputed  certain 
disorders  to  demons,  or  evil  spirits.  But  no  one  now 
believes,  the  disorders  of  the  Cerviti  or  Larvati  were 
produced  by  Ceres,  the  mother  of  the  gods,  or 
spectres  ;  and  that  some  persons  had  a  legion  of 
spectres  in  them.  All  this  was  mere  hypothesis,  the 
philosophy  of  those  times,  and  had  no  connexion  with 
the  diseases  imputed  to  them.  We  even  doubt,  if 
they  had  a  serious  belief  in  their  own  hypothesis.  If 
they  had,  why  did  they  prescribe  as  a  cure  of  disor- 
ders produced  by  demons,  radish  and  helebore  pre- 
pared in  a  certain  way  ;  the  water  of  a  smith's  forge  ; 
the  tongue,  eyes,  gall,  and  intestines  of  a  draoron  ;  the 
blood  of  a  mole  ;  diamonds  ;  amber;  etc?  or,  how 
could  they  believe,  that  the  drinking  the  juice  of  a 
certain  herb  called  Thalassegle,  could  cause  men  to 
be  possessed  with  demons."  See  Pliny's  Natural 
History.  They  must  have  been  strange  demons  in- 
deed, if  such  things  expelled  them,  Hippocrates  and 
others  among  the  ancients,  have  shewn,  tliat  epilepsy, 
melancholy,  madness,  which  were  ascribed  to  demons, 
are  accounted  for  from  natural  causes.  The  man  would 
be  deemed  mad  now,  who  would  impute  such  disor- 
ders to  demons,  or  evil  spirits.     We  indeed  speak  of 


39*2  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

St.  Vitus's  dance  and  Sr.  Anthony's  fire,  but  no  one 
belives  those  saints  produced  these  disorders.  Ceres, 
Apollo,  Mars,  Neptune,  or  any  demons,  had  just  as 
little  hand  in  producing  the  disorders  imputed  to  them. 

It  is  evident,  that  among  the  Jews,  demons  were 
expelled  by  natural  means.  See  how  Tobit's  evil  spirit 
was  expelled,  as  noticed  in  another  place.  They  were 
expelled  also  "by  mujic"  and  "strong  smells,"  and 
it  is  related  in  Josephus's  Instory,  that  Solomon  found 
out  a  root  called  Baaras,  which  was  put  under  the 
seal  of  the  ting,  and  when  held  to  ihe  nose,  drew  the 
demon  out  at  this  passage.  He  relates  a  story  of 
Eleazor  casting  out  demons  in  the  presence  of  Vespa- 
sian and  others  ;  and  to  convince  them  of  the  fact, 
commanded  the  demon  to  overturn  a  vessel  of  water 
as  he  went  out.  But  the  story  is  too  long  for  quota- 
tion, and  too  absurd  to  deserve  any  notice  whatever. 

I  come  now,  to  consider  all  the  passages  in  the 
New  Testament  which  speak  ol  casting  out  demons, 
whether  by  Christ  or  others.  We  begin  with  the 
general  statements  respecting  this,  and  as  they  are  sim- 
ilar, the  same  remarks  apply  to  them  all  :  the  first  text  is, 

Math.  iv.  24.  "  And  Jesus'  fime  went,  throughout 
all  Syria  ;  and  they  brought  unto  him  all  sick  people 
that  were  taken  with  divers  diseases  and  torments,  and 
those  which  were  possessed  with  demons,  and  those 
which  were  lunatic,  and  those  that  had  the  palsy  ;  and 
he  healed  them."  Comp.  Math.  ix.  35.  Wakefield's 
note  here,  deserves  the  readers  notice.  He  says — 
"  Demoniacs  :  A  popular  i.ame  for  one  sort  of  mad- 
ness, chiefly  of  the  raging  kind,  founded  on  a  foolish 
superstition  of  the  vulgar,  that  madmen  were  possessed 
bv  the  spirits  of  dead  men,  called  demons  ;  just  as 
others  were  called  lunatics,  as  if  affected  by  the  moon. 
So  modern  times  have  had  their  *S'^  Vitus^s  dance, 
and    St.  Anthony's   fire  :   and    these    terms  are  used 


AN    INQUIRr PART    111.  393 

without  scruple  by  those,  who  have  not  the  least 
notion  of  the  interference  of  these  saints  in  these 
particular  disorders.  Indeed,  all  o;reat  irregularities  in 
the  system  of  nature,  of  which  racking  madness  is  one, 
the  ancients  both  heathen  and  Jews,  but  especially 
the  latter,  were  accustomed  to  attribute  to  supernatu- 
ral agency.  See  my  evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  14. 
2  Edit.  Thus  for  instance,  an  unusual  and  lucky 
cast  of  the  dice  was  called  by  the  Romans — 'the  cast 
of  Venus,'  as  if  occasioned  by  that  goddess.  It  is 
wonderful  to  me,  how  any  man,  conversant  with 
classic  authors,  can  entertain  any  other  opinion  of  the 
demoniacs  of  the  New  Testament.  Indeed,  it  is  the 
most  remarkable  instance  I  know,  of  the  triumph  of 
prejudice  and  superstition  over  learning  and  good 
sense.  This,  however,  is  not  the  place  to  enter  more 
minutely  into  this  question  :  and  1  shall  only  mention, 
that  this  idea  is  nothing  new.  The  same  opinion  was 
maintained  by  several  great  men  both  of  the  last  and 
present  century  :  and  among  the  rest  by  Joseph  Mede, 
of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge  ;  as  learned,  and  in 
every  view,  as  respectable  a  divine,  as  England  ever 
produced."  This  quotation  confirms  many  things 
said  above,  and  applies  to  several  passages  which  we 
shall  presently  consider.  It  deserves  our  notice,  that 
in  the  above  passage,  the  common  expression  "  and 
he  healed  them,"  is  applied  to  all,  whatever  their  dis- 
orders were,  and  intimates,  that  those  supposed  to  be 
possessed  with  demons  were  diseased  as  well  as  the 
others.  But  we  shall  see  from  other  passages,  that 
this  mode  of  speaking  is  not  always  observed,  and 
perhaps  for  this  reason,  that  the  bodily  diseases  of 
insane  persons  are  not  always  apparent,  hence  the 
demon  or  madness  is  said  to  be  cast  out,  because  this 
was  visible  to  others. 


394 


AN  INQUIRY PART   III. 


Matt.  vlii.  16.  "When  the  ev^en  was  come,  they 
brought  unto  him  many  that  were  possessed  with 
demons  ;  and  he  cast  out  the  spirits  with  his  word, 
and  healed  all  that  were  sick."  The  parallel,  or 
similar  passages  may  be  found  in  I\Iark  i.  3*2,  34, 
39.  And  Luke  \v.  iO,  41,  which  the  reader  will  be 
pleased  to  consult.  On  the  whole  of  ihern  I  will 
merely  suggest  a  few  hints.  It  is  very  evident,  that 
in  these  texts  demons  and  spirits  express  the  same 
thing.  It  is  also  evident  that  those  possessed  with 
demons  are  distinguished  from  such  as  were  sick  with 
divers  diseases.  Again,  the  demons  are  represented 
as  crying  out  "thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of  God."  But 
It  will  be  seen  from  other  passages,  that  it  was  the 
persons  not  the  demons  who  did  this,  and  it  was  the 
persons  he  rebuked,  and  suffered  them  not  to  speak. 
According  to  the  popular  opinions,  the  demons  were 
supposed  to  speak  in  or  through  the  persons  possess- 
ed, just  as  madness  now,  speaks  in  or  through  a 
maniac.  Jesus  rebuked  a  fever,  and  why  not  also 
madness,  or  any  other  diseases.  See  Luke  iv.  39. 
Jesus,  Luke  xiii.  22,  desired  them  to  go  and  tell 
Herod,  that  he  cast  out  demons.  But  did  he  mean 
by  this,  that  he  cast  out  fallen  angels  ?  We  should 
think  not,  but  that  he  cast  out  madness,  cured  insane 
people  ;  a  disease  which  now  as  then,  was  often  in- 
curable. 

In  Luke  viii.  2,  3,  and  ]Mark  xvi.  9,  we  are  told 
Jesus  cast  seven  demons  out  of  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
we  shall  see,  that  a  person  declared,  that  he  had  a 
leo-ion  of  demons  within  hitn.  I  would  suggest  it  for 
consideration  here,  whether  the  number  of  demons 
supposed  to  be  in  a  |)erson,  was  not  determined  by 
the  degree  of  the  insanity  he  manifested.     I  find  no 


AN    INQUIRY PART    111.  395 

insane  person  mentioned  in  the  New  Testan:ient,   who 
was  not  deemed  a  demoniac. 

In  the  following  texts,  we  are  told  that  Jesus  gave 
his  disciples  power  and  authority  to  cast  out  demons, 
Matt.  X.  8  :  Mark  iii.  15  ;  Luke  ix.  ],  and  x.  17. 
Also  Mark  xvi.  17.  But,  did  he  give  them  power  to 
cast  out  of  persons  fallen  angels  ?  or,  even  the  ghosts 
of  dead  men  deified.  If  so,  then  .this  was  done  by 
others  besides  them,  as  appears  from  these  texts, 
which  the  reader  may  consult,  Mark  ix.  38  ;  Luke 
ix.  49  ;  Math,  vii,  2:2,  23.  Besides,  it  has  been 
shown,  that  persons  cast  out  demons,  or  fallen  angels 
by  natural  means  ;  and  people  are  sent  to  our  insane 
nospilals,  and  put  into  the  bands  of  physicians  every- 
day, to  have  fallen  angels  cast  out  of  them.  By  what 
symptoms,  or,  by  what  rule  was  it  determined,  that 
demons  produced  such  insanity,  and  other  disorders  in 
ancient  times,  yet  no  demons  produce  such  disorders 
now  ?  Have  hospitals  and  physicians  banished  them 
from  the  earth  ? 

We  come  now  to  the  examination  of  the  passages, 
which  are  supposed  to  teacli,  that  demons  are  wicked 
spirits,  and  were  the  cause  of  various  disorders  among 
men  in  the  days  of  our  Lord.  We  request  the  reader 
to  bear  in  mind  what  has  been  said  in  the  preceding 
pages.  And  before  we  proceed,  it  may  be  of  use  to 
make  tlie  followins;  remarks. 

1.  Many,  yea  most  of  the  persons  cured  by  Christ, 
were  not  possessed  by  demons.  Those  said  to  be 
possessed  with  them,  were  few  in  number  compared 
with  tliose  whom  he  healed  of  various  other  diseases. 
Perhaps  they  bore  the  same  proportion  then,  that  de- 
ranged people  do  now,  to  all  the  sick  in  the  coramu^ 
nity.  I  do  not  mention  this,  as  a  certain  proof  that 
they  were  deranged  peoplej  but  if  it  is  proved  that 


396  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

they  were,  this  circumstance  goes  to  confirm  it.  It  is 
certain,  those  possessed  with  demons,  were  deemed 
among  the  diseased  he  cured,  for  it  is  said  of  them  in 
common  with  the  rest,  that — "  he  healed  them,"  that 
'•  they  were  made  whole."  Insanity  and  other  great 
disorders,  were  not  known  then  as  now,  to  arise  from 
natural  causes,  hence  were  ascribed  to  evil  spirits,  or, 
demons.  Who  now  imputes  to  persons  in  our  insane 
hospitals,  that  they  are  possessed  with  demons,  or, 
that  the  wildest  maniac  has  a  legion  of  them  in  him? 

•2.  As  those  who  were  possessed  with  demons,  are 
distinguished  from  all  other  sick  and  diseased  whom 
our  Lord  healed,  the  question  arises,  in  what  way 
were  they  distinguished  from  all  the  others  ?  By  what 
symptom  did  people  judge,  that  any  person  was  pos- 
sessed with  a  demon  ?  From  malice  or  prejudice, 
persons  might  be  accused  with  having  a  demon  with- 
out any  just  ground  for  it,  as  was  the  case  with  Jesus 
and  John  Baptist.  But  in  the  cases  about  to  be  in- 
troduced, nothing  of  this  kind  can  be  admitted.  Peo- 
ple must  have  judged  by  their  bodily  senses,  when 
they  concluded  that  a  person  was  possessed  of  a  de- 
mon ;  ard  certain  visible  symptoms  in  the  persons 
appearance,  words,  and  actions,  formed  the  ground  of 
this  conclusion.  Our  bodily  senses  are  not  fitted  to 
see  spirits  at  all,  much  less  to  see  them  within  a  per- 
son, and  still  less  to  determine,  whether  he  had  one, 
seven,  or  a  legion  of  demons  within  him.  It  is  not 
pretended,  any  one  knew  all  this  by  a  divine  revela- 
tion in  th(^  Old  or  New  Testament,  for  we  have  seen, 
that  demons  are  spoken  of  in  both  as  false  gods,  vani- 
ties, or,  nothings  in  the  world.  No  Scripture  writer 
says  they  are  fallen  angels,  or  evil  beings  of  any  kind. 
God  is  not  said  to  have  created  them.  They  are  not 
said  to  be  the  ghosts  of  dead  men,  either  good  or  l)ad, 


AN    INQUIRY PART   III. 


397 


in  the  Bible,  for  this  is  an  old  heathen  superstition. 
It  has  waxed  old,  and  like  witclies  has  vanished 
away,  but  some  still  suppose  they  find  it  in  their 
Bibles. 

Wliat  then  were  the  external  symptoms,  which  in- 
dicated, that  persons  were  possessed  with  demons? 
Were  they  bodily,  or  mental,  or  both  ?  In  some 
cases  mental,  in  some  both,  The  bodily  symptoms 
of  a  fever,  or  the  palsy,  etc.  were  no  proofs  that  a 
person  was  possessed  with  a  demon.  It  was  mental 
aberration  in  a  greater  or  less  deo;ree,  or  some  strange 
disease,  which  designated  persons  to  be  possessed 
witli  demons  ;  and  as  their  derangement  w^as  more  or 
less  furious,  so  the  number  of  demons  in  them  was 
supposed  to  be.  The  demon  or  demons  were  sup- 
posed to  enter  the  persons  when  they  became  de- 
ranged, and  to  leave  them  wdien  restored  to  a  sound 
mind.  It  is  said  by  Hammond  that  "the  Jews  con- 
sidered the  leprosy  as  inflicted  by  God  ;  and  the 
Persians  as  inflicted  by  the  sun  for  offending  him." 
And  Lightfoot  says  '•'  the  Jews  attributed  some  of  the 
more  grievous  diseases  to  evil  spirits."  And  the 
woman's  disorder  mentioned  Luke  xiii,  is  ascribed  to 
Satan,  because  she  could  not  stand  upright.  But  in 
the  New  Testament,  all  the  persons  said  to  be  pos- 
sessed with  demons  seem  to  have  been  deranged  ; 
supposed  to  be  under  mental  aberration,  or  some  un- 
usual disease  of  the  body.  Common  bodily  diseases 
are  never  ascribed  to  demons.  But  let  us  come  to 
the  passages,  which  speak  of  persons  possessed  with 
demons.  j\s  they  are  long,  to  save  room,  we  request 
the  reader  to  turn  to  them  and  read  them. 

Math.  ix.  32— 35;  Luke  xi.  14—27.  Let  the 
reader  compare  and  notice  what  Matthew  says  "  they 
brought  to  Jesus  a  dumb  man  possessed  with  a  de-^ 
26 


398  ^  AN  INQUIRY^PART  III. 

mon."  But  Luke  seems  to  say  the  demon  was  dumb. 
He  "  was  casting  out  a  demon  and  it  was  dumb." 
But  was  a  fallen  angel^  an  evil  spirit  dumb?  No,  the 
man  was  dumb,  for  it  is  said  "  when  the  demon  was 
gone  out  the  dumb  spake."  If  the  demon  was  dumb 
while  in  tlie  man,  it  was  the  man  who  made  him 
dumb,  for  as  soon  as  cast  out,  he  became  a  speaking 
demon,  and  our  Lord  of  course  cured  the  demon 
rather  than  the  man.  But  this  is  too  absurd  to  be 
believed.  It  is  not  said,  this  man  was  born  dumb  ; 
his, dumbness  is  imputed  to  the  demon  whatever  that 
was.  From  what  has  been  said  in  the  preceding 
pages,  and  will  still  be  said,  derangement  seems  to 
have  been  the  demon.  And  this  agrees  to  cases  of  a 
similar  nature  in  our  own  day.  Some  person's  de- 
rangement makes  them  dumb  like  this  person  ;  you 
cannot  make  them  speak  on  any  subject.  They  are 
sullen  and  silent  at  all  times.  But  this  persons  loss 
of  speech,  from  some  unaccountable  cause,  was  suffic' 
ient  in  the  language  of  the  tiu)es,  to  have  it  ascribed 
to  a  demon.  But  wlien  the  cause  of  any  disease  is  in- 
scrutable to  Mortals,  is  it  proper  to  ascribe  it  to  de- 
mons, a  race  of  heathen  imaginaiy  beings  ?  Why 
not  like  Job  ascribe  it  to  God  ? 

Math.  xii.  22 — 3L  In  chap.  ix.  32  we  have  seen, 
that  they  brought  to  Jesus  "  a  dumb  man  possessed  with 
a  demon.  But  in  this  passage  we  are  informed,  there 
was  brought  to  him  —  ''one  possessed  witlj  a  demon, 
Mind  and  dumby  But  surely  it  was  the  person,  and 
not  the  demon  that  was  blind  and  dumb."  Farther 
we  are  told,  that  Jesus  ^'healed  hinij''  not  suiely  the 
demon  but  the  man.  And  it  is  added,  "  insotnuch 
that  the  blind  and  dumb  both  spake  and  saw."  It  is 
not  said  Jesus  cast  the  demon  out  of  this  man  but 
that  "he  healed  him,"  and  shows  us  that  the  demon 


AN    INQ,UIRY PART    III.  399 

was  the  disease,  which  caused  his  dumbness  and  want 
of  sight.  It  is  not  said  of  this  person,  as  of  one  John 
9th,  that  he  was  born  bhnd.  This  person's  bhndness 
and  dumbness  seem  to  have  been  produced  by  dis- 
ease, and  we  have  seen  above,  that  the  Jews  imputed 
ffreat  disorders  both  of  body  and  mind  to  demons. 
The  Pharisees  on  this  occasion,  as  on  several  others, 
said  —  "This  fellow  doih  not  cast  out  demons,  but 
by  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  demons."  This  shows, 
that  even  they  deemed  healing  the  persons  of  such  a 
disorder,  was  the  same  as  casting  out  the  demon. 
Concerning  Beelzebub,  and  our  Lord's  reasoning  with 
the  Pharisees  on  their  charge  against  him,  we  shall 
here  notice  once  for  all.  It  applies  to  other  passages. 
We  are  told,  that  on  this  occasion,  the  Pharisees 
said  —  "he  casteth  out  demons  through  the  prince  of 
the  demons."  Beelzebub  is  repeatedly  called  the 
prince  of  the  demons,  but  never  the  prince  of  the 
devils,  and  is  one  instance  out  of  many  where  our 
English  word  devils  leads  people  wrong,  being  the 
rendering  of  both  diabolos  and  daimonion  in  our 
English  version  of  the  New  Testam.ent.  But  it  is 
evident  from  2  Kings  i.  2,  that  Beelzebub  was  the 
god  of  Ekron,  the  fly  hunting  god  as  some  afiirm, 
because  he  preserved  his  worshippers  from  these 
insects,  so  annoying  in  hot  climates,  and  was  wor- 
shipped under  the  form  of  a  fly."  It  is  said  the  Jews 
called  every  demon  Satan  and  Samael,  the  yrince  of 
Satans.  See  Doddridge  on  Math.  xii.  But  Satan, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  first  part  of  this  work,  simply 
means  an  adversary.  By  consulting  the  passage,  it 
is  seen  our  Lord  goes  on  to  reason  with  the  Phari- 
sees, showing  them  the  inconsistency  of  supposing, 
that  one  demon  would  cast  out  another,  or,  that  the 
prince  of  the  demons  would  cast  out  his  own  subjects. 


400  AN    INQ.IJ1RY PART    111. 

And  in  other  passages,  shows  its  inconsistency  by  a 
bouse  and  kingdom  being  divided  against  themselves, 
that  they  could  not  stand. 

Math,  xvii  14—22;  Mark  ix.  14—30:  Luke  ix. 
37 — 43.  The  case  stated  in  these  passages  was  that 
of  an  only  child,  and  had  been  under  the  disorder 
from  a  child.  Celsus  and  Hippocrates  say  it  was 
epilepsy,  and  the  latter  says  —  "  when  the  disorder  is 
of  lono-  standing,  it  is  incurable."  Tlie  symptoms 
described  in  the  passages  agree  to  this.  Matthew  says 
he  was  lunatic,  and  this  disorder  often  disorders  the 
mind,  as  is  well  known.  And  his  epileptic  fits 
described,  ai'e  the  sarne  as  those  in  the  present  day, 
under  tlie  same  disease.  It  is  evident,  a  demon,  a 
spirit  and  a  deaf  and.  dumb  spirit  mentioned,  all 
designate  the  same  thing,  and  the  effects  produced 
are  ascribed  to  it.  But  what  need  was  there  for  an 
evil  spirit  to  produce  them,  any  more  than  in  the 
present  day  ?  The  disease  was  sufficient  then  as  now 
to  produce  the  effects.  The  disease  was  the  demon, 
the  dumb,  deaf,  and  foul  spirit,  and  nothing  else  was 
needed.  It  produced  lunacy  of  mind,  and  distress  to 
the  body  then  as  now,  and  rationally  accounts  for  all 
the  distressing  effects  mentioned.  Tlie  cominon  usage 
of  the  term  spirit  in  Scrij)tme,  and  as  used  in  the 
case  of  Saul  and  others,  outdit  here  to  be  remem- 
bered. This  case  is  so  plain,  that  it  would  be  a 
waste  cf  time  to  dwell  on  it.  When  Jesus  cured  this 
child,  it  is  said,  he  "  rebuked  "  the  demon,  the  un- 
clean spirit  etc.  and  healed  the  child.  But  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  rebuked  "a  fever"  and  the  winds  and 
waves  of  the  sea,  he.  Perhaps  the  difficulty  of 
curing  this  disorder,  led  our  Lord  to  say,  prayer  and 
fasting  were  necessary  to  cure  it.  But  my  limits 
forbid  me  noticing  this,  etc,  etc. 


AN    INQ.UIRY PART    IIT.  401 

:\rark  i.  23—29;  Luke  iv.  33—36.  By  compar- 
ing these  passages,  "an  unclean  spirit,"  and  '^  a 
spirit  of  an  unclean  demon,"  mean  the  same  thing. 
What  was  this?  It  was  that  which  '^tore  the  man, 
and  threw  him  in  the  midst."  But  from  these  very 
expressions,  brief  as  they  are,  it  may  be  concluded, 
that  this  man's  disorder  was  similar  to  the  child  under 
the  epilepsy  already  noticed.  And  that  it  had  de- 
ranged his  mind  we  may  also  infer  for  he  supposed 
himself  possessed  of  more  than  one  demon,  or  evil 
spirit,  for  he  said  "  let  us  alone  ;  what  have  we  to  do 
with  thee  thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  Art  thou  come 
to  destroy  lis  1  I  know  thee  who  thou,  art,  the  holy 
one  of  God."  This  man's  derangement  was  not  a 
deaf  and  dumb  spirit,  like  that  of  the  epileptic  child, 
for  he  was  rather  talkative  ;  and  it  proves  nothing 
against  his  deran2;ement,  that  he  spoke  what  he  did, 
for  deranged  persons  often  speak  truth,  and  more  of  it 
than  some  wish  to  hear.  When  Jesus  cured  the  man, 
he  rebuked  him,  commanded  him  to  be  silent.  But 
bad  he  rebuked  the  demon  or  the  unclean  spirit,  it 
was  only  rebuking  the  man's  disease  as  he  did  the 
fever  in  Peter's  wife's  motlier.  When  a  person  is 
seized  with  any  disease  and  especially  of  an  extraor- 
dinary kind,  it  is  common  to  inquire  what  was  the 
cause  of  it  ?  What  produced  it  ?  And  sometimes 
we  can  trace  jt  to  its  cause,  a  violent  cold  or  some- 
thing else.  If  not,  we  say,  we  cannot  tell.  But  in 
ancient  times  unaccountable  diso7^ders  were  traced  to 
demons  as  the  cause  of  them. 

Mark  iii.  22 — 28.  The  reader  will  please  read 
this  passage  and  notice,  that  in  verse  21  we  are  told 
Jesus'  friends  "  went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him  ;  for  they 
said,  he  is  beside  himself  And  let  him  remember, 
that  we  have  seen,  the  Jews  said  of  Jesus— "he 


402  AN    INQUIRY — PART     11!. 

hath  a  demon  and  is  mad."  Jesus'  friends  only  men- 
tioned the  visible,  or  supposed  visible  effect,  dcrmige- 
ment  of  mind.  But  the  Jews  mention  both  the 
supposed  cause,  and  the  effect.  He  is  "  mad,"  but 
they  also  say  "  he  hath,  a  demon,^^  which  is  the  cause 
of  it.  Now  notice  what  is  said  verse  22.  "  And  the 
scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem  said  —  "he 
hath  Beelzebub,"  naming  the  very  demon  they  sup- 
posed him  possessed  with,  and  had  made  him  mad. 
They  imputed  his  madness  to  no  ordinary  demon,  but 
to  the  prince  of  the  demons,  and  supposed  that  by 
this  prince  of  the  demons  he  cast  out  demons.  But 
Beelzebub,  as  we  have  noticed  above,  was  the  God 
of  Ekron,  a  heatlien  deity,  which  could  neither  curse 
nor  bless,  do  good  or  evil,  was  a  nonentity  in  the 
world.  But  it  deserves  special  notice,  that  what  the 
Jews  said  on  this  occasion,  and  repeated  on  several 
others  show  what  were  the  popular  opinions  respect- 
ing demons  in  the  days  of  our  Lord.  Whether  true 
or  false,  they  seem  to  have  been  common,  pervading 
all  ranks  of  society  as  the  opinions  about  witches 
did   among  us  only  a  few   years  ago. 

Math.  XV.  21—29;  Mark  vii.  24—31.  T!ie  case 
recorded  in  these  two  passages,  is  that  of  the  daughter 
of  a  woman,  who  was  a  Greek.  She  said  —  "My 
daughter  is  grievously  vexed,  with  a  demon.  Mark 
calls  it  "an  unclean  spirit,"  and  also  a  demon,  which 
shows  both  these  phrases  expressed  the  same  thing. 
The  mother's  request  was,  that  Jesus  "  would  cast 
forth  the  demon,  the  unclean  spirit  out  of  her  daugh- 
ter." But  how  did  she  know,  or  suppose,  that  it  was 
in  her?  for  no  disease  of  body  or  insanity  of  mind,  is 
mentioned  about  her  in  either  of  the  passages.  Yet 
we  are  told,  she  "  was  made  whole  from  that  very 
hour,  and  when  her  mother  came  to  her  house,  "  she 


AN   INQUIRY PART  III.  403 

foLincI  the  demon  gone  out,  and  her  daufrhter  laid  upon 
the  bed."  Now,  what  demon  did  she  find  had  gone 
out  of  Iier  daughter  ?  Certainly  the  demon  which 
before  had  "grievously  vexed"  her.  And  what 
demon  could  this  be,  but  the  disease  of  which  Jesus 
had  cured  her  ?  What  her  disease  was,  we  may  at 
least  conjecture  from  other  passages,  where  it  is  said 
a  demon  "  vexed  or  crrievously  tormented  "  other 
persons.  See  Math.  viii.  6.  We  have  seen,  that  all 
great  disorders,  of  either  body  or  mind,  were  ascribed 
to  the  influence  of  demons.  But  as  the  disorder  of 
of  this  woman's  daughter  is  not  described,  it  is  vain 
for  us  to  say,  what  il  precisely  was.  Perhaps,  it  was 
not  exactly  known  to  themselves,  and  its  symptoms  so 
different  from  those  of  other  diseases,  that  no  descrip- 
tion is  given  of  it.  But  from  the  popular  opinions  of 
the  day  about  demons,  and  her  daughter's  disease,  the 
mother  concluded  she  was  grievously  vexed  with  a 
demon.  And  when  she  came  home  to  her  house,  and 
found  her  disease  removed,  she  concluded  that  the 
demon  had  left  her.  We  should  think  this  a  plain 
case,  that  the  only  demon  in  her  was  her  disease,  and 
nothing  but  the  common  popular  superstition,  had 
imputed  its  cause  to  a  demon.  And  this  was  done  in 
a  singular  way,  as  when  we  impute  a  fever  to  a  cold. 
And  do  we  not  often  ascribe  disorders  to  supposed 
causes,  just  as  the  heathen  supposed  demons  to  be  the 
cause  of  madness  and  other  disorders  ?  When  we 
hear  of  a  friend,  or  neio-hbor  who  has  become  de- 
ranged,  we  ask  what  was  the  cause  of  it  ?  Some- 
times it  is  imputed  to  disease,  to  loss  of  property, 
failure  in  business,  and  disappointments,  &c.  And  if 
it  cannot  be  traced  to  some  cause,  we  never  as  in 
ancient  times,  impute  it  to  a  demon.  But  why  not? 
Because  this  is  not  a  popular  opinion  among  us,  and 


404  AN    INQUIRY PART    111. 

we  know,  that  insanity  arises  from  bodily  disease,  and 
can  be  cured  by  natural  means. 

Maih.  viii.  28—34  ;  Mark  v.  1—21  ;  Luke  viii. 
26 — 40,  These  three  passages  contain  three  accounts 
of  the  Gadarene  demoniac.  They  are  deemed  the 
strongest,  in  proving  that  demons  are  fallen  angels,  or, 
evil  spirits.  My  limits  do  not  permit  me  to  say  all  I 
designed  on  these  passages.  Mathew  says  there 
were  two  men,  but  Mark  and  Luke  only  mention  one. 
As  my  design  and  limits  forbid  me  to  discuss  this  and 
other  things,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  question, 
was  the  person  commonly  called  —  the  Gadarean 
demoniac  actually  possessed  with  demons?'  To  an- 
swer this  question  correctly,  we  ought  to  consider, 
what  was  the  real  condition  of  this  man — and  what 
was  his  supposed  condition.  1.  Let  us  inquire,  what 
was  his  real  condition,  when  our  Lord  met  with  him 
at  Gadara  ?  It  is  too  obvious  to  need  a  labored  proof, 
that  he  was  a  deranged  man,  a  madman,  a  raging, 
furious  maniac.  All  the  three  accounts  agree  in  this, 
and  only  need  to  be  read  to  be  satisfied  of  the  fact. 
We  are  told,  that  after  Jesus  had  cured  him,  he  was 
found  "  sitting,  clothed,  and  in  his  right  mind,"  and 
shows,  he  was  not  in  his  right  mind  before.  It  would 
be  a  waste  of  time,  to  say  more  in  proof  of  this,  for 
this  man's  dwelling-place,  his  words,  and  his  actions, 
all  confirm  it.  Our  insane  asylums,  furnish  abimdant 
instances  of  as  strange  sayings  and  doings  in  person 
there,  as  appeared  in  him,  which  I  decline  relating  for 
mere  amusement. 

2,  We  then  inquire,  what  was  the  supposed  condi- 
tion of  this  man  ?  No  one  needed  to  suppose  him  a 
madman  for  this  was  notorious  to  all.  The  question 
is,  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  cause  of  his  madness? 
Not  disease,   but   to    demons    which    possessed   him. 


AN    INQUIRY PART    111.  405 

And  the}^  are  denominated  in  the  accounts  "unclean 
spirits,"  &z,c.  This  was  the  common  popular  belief, 
as  we  have  seen,  that  all  derang;ed  persons  were  suv 
posed  to  be  possessed  with  demons  or  evii  s pints. 
The  Jews  supposed  our  Lord  to  be  possessed  with  the 
prince  of  demons.  But  a  fact  and  a  supposition  are 
very  different  things.  No  evidence  of  the  fact,  have 
we  yet  seen,  Tiie  man  himself,  supposed  that  he 
was  possessed  with  demons,  yea  had  a  legion  of  them 
in  him.  But  what  else  could  this  be  but  supposition, 
and  a  very  wild  supposition  of  a  maniac,  founded  on 
■the  superstitious  opinions  which  prevailed  about  de- 
mons. The  real  condition  of  the  man,  accounts 
rationally  for  such  an  extravagant  supposition.  No 
man  in  liis  sober  senses,  chu  believe  he  had  a  legion 
of  demons  or  evil  spirits  in  him.  Mary  Magdalene 
had  seven  demons  in  her,  but  as  this  man  was  more 
deranged  than  she  was,  it  vv'as  supposed  he  had  a 
legion  in  him.  The  number  of  demons  were  prob- 
ably increased,  according  to  the  degree.of  the  person's 
insanity,  or,  the  unaccountable  nature  of  the  person's 
disease. 

If  it  is  objected,  madman  as  this  man  was,  did  he 
not  cry  out  —  "What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus, 
thou  son  of  the  most  high  God  ?  I  adjure  thee  by 
God,  that  thou  torment  me  not."  I  answer,  we 
all.  know  madmen  sometimes  speak  very  rationally 
and  speak  the  truth,  as  is  well  known.  Matthew 
speaks  of  this  torment  "before  the  time."  But  it  is 
not  said  to  be  in  a  future  state,  and  if  it  was,  what 
then  ?  It  was  the  common  belief  then  as  it  is  now, 
that  the  devil  and  his  angels  were  to  torment  men  for 
ever.  All  this  was  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  opin- 
ions of  the  day,  certainly  nothing  strange  in  a  mad- 
man, for  many  are  mad  enough  now  to  hold  the  same 


406  AN    INQUIRY PART    111. 

opinions.  Confessino;  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  Gcd  is 
no  difficulty,  unless  it  could  be  shown,  the  man  had 
never  heard  any  thing  about  Jesus,  but  was  taught  to 
make  this  confession  by  the  legion  of  demons  he  sup- 
posed to  be  in  him.  But  who  can  prove  this?  Jesus' 
tame  accounts  for  the  man's  confession.  I  n)ay  add, 
as  a  reason  why  the  man  asked  Jesus  not  to  torment 
him,  it  is  immediately  added,  both  by  Mark  and  Luke, 
"  for  he  said  unto  him,  come  out  of  the  man,  thou 
unclean  spirit."  The  madman  seems  to  have  thought, 
the  removal  of  the  demons  would  prove  a  torment, 
and  he  wished  to  continue  in  his  present  condition. 

But  what  farther  sliows  the  supposed  condition  of 
the  man  is,  what  follows.  Jesus  asked  him  his  name, 
and  he  answers  —  "  My  name  is  Legion,  for  we  are 
many."  But  was  this  any  thing,  but  the  man's  own 
wild  supposition  ?  And  he  goes  on,  and  besought 
Jesus  in  behalf  of  the  demons,  "  that  he  would  not 
send  them  away  out  of  the  country."  And  was  not 
this  mere  imagination  ?  We  are  then  told  —  "  There 
was  niiih  unto  the  mountains  a  great  herd  of  svvine 
feeding,"  said  to  be  about  two  thousand.  And  it  is 
then  said,  "  all  the  demons  besought  him,  saying, 
'•'  send  us  into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter  into 
them."  But  did  a  Legion  of  demons  in  the  man,  all 
make  this  request  ?  or,  did  they  use  the  man's  organs 
of  speech  to  make  it  for  them  ?  But  be  this  as  it 
may,  Jesus  gave  them  leave,  and  out  they  went  into 
the  swine,  "  and  the  herd  ran  violently  down  a  steep 
place  and  were  choked  in  the  sea."  The  request  of 
the  demons  was,  that  they  might  not  be  sent  out  of 
the  country,  nor  to  go  out  "  into  the  deep,"  but  into 
the  swine,  and  as  soon  as  they  got  into  them,  they 
rush  with  the  swine  out  into  the  deep.  But  strange 
as  all   this  appears,  it   is  related  as  a  fact,  that   the 


AN  INQUIRY PART  III.  407 

swine  did  rush  into  the  sea  and  perished,  as  the  after 
part  of  the  accounts  show.  The  important,  and  only 
question  we  need  now  to  consider  is  —  what  went  out 
of  the  man  and  entered  into  the  swine  ?  One,  or  other 
of  the  following  views  must  be  taken,  for  the  case 
does  not  admit  of  a  third. 

1.  That  the  demons  went  out  of  the  man  and  en- 
tered into  the  swine.  But  if  we  take  this  view  of  the 
matter,  it  follows,  that  a  whole  legion  of  demons  were 
in  the  man,  went  out  of  him  and  entered  into  two 
thousand  swine.  How  many  this  wcs  to  each  of  them 
the  reader  can  calculate.  And  to  take  this  view  of 
the  subject,  is  at  variance  with  all  said  in  the  Bible 
about  demons,  except  in  this  account  and  the  few  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  persons  possessed  with  them. 
The  Old  and  New  Testament  writers  speak  oi  demons 
as  heathen  gods,  nothings  in  the  world,  as  we  have 
seen  above.  But  the  account  we  are  considering,  is 
in  unison  with  the  popular  superstition  which  prevailed 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  as  has  been  shown  in  the 
course  of  our  remarks.  And  who  will  not  allow,  that 
to  believe  a  legion  of  demons  was  in  this  madman, 
and  leaving  him  entered  into  two  thousand  swine,  is 
not  very  agreeable  to  reason,  common  sense,  or  obser- 
vation. If  a  man  now,  in  one  of  our  insane  hospitals, 
spoke  and  acted  just  as  this  madman  did,  and  the 
superintendant  imputed  all  this  to  his  being  possessed 
with  demons,  he  would  be  immediately  dismissed  as 
unfit  for  his  situation. 

2.  The  only  other  answer,  which  can  be  given  to 
the  question  is,  that  the  man's  madness  left  him,  and 
went  into  the  swine.  Nothing  else  could  leave  the 
one  and  go  into  the  other,  for  this  was  all  in  the  man 
to  go  out,  which  could  affect  the  swine.  His  wild 
insanity,  led  him  to  suppose  a  legion  of  demons  were 


408 


AN    INQUIRY PART    III. 


in  him,  and  to  request  that  they  might  be  permitted  to 
enter  the  swine.  And  when  the  man's  madness  lelt 
him  and  entered  the  swine,  they  became  mad  and 
mshed  on  to  their  own  destruction.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  the  man's  insanity  should  be  transferred  to  them, 
any  more  tiuin  that  Naaman's  leprosy  should  be  trans- 
ierred  to  Gehazi,  2  Kings  chap.  v.  To  say^  the 
man's  madness  entered  into  the  swine,  is  rational,  and 
accounts  fur  their  rushing  into  the  sea.  If  insanity 
in  the  man,  drove  liim  to  act  as  he  did,  it  need  not 
surprise  us,  that  when  it  entered  the  swine,  it  drove 
them  into  the  sea.  I  think,  no  other  rational  view 
can  be  taken  of  the  subject  ;  and  all  objections  which 
may  be  urged  aii;ainst  it,  arise  from  overlooking  the 
fact,  that  the  New  Testament  writers  speak  in  the 
above  passa2:es,  accoiding  to  the  usual  language  of  the 
day  about  demons.  And  be  it  observed,  it  is  only 
when  they  speak  of  the  supposed  influence  o{  demons 
in  men,  that  the}/  speak  as  in  the  preceding  passages. 
In  connection  with  doctrines  they  speak  of  them  as 
idols  as  mere  nonentities. 

I  am  aware  it  may  be  said  —  why  did  not  om*  Lord 
speak  of  demons  according  to  the  truth  about  them, 
and  not  in  the  popular  language  of  the  day,  which  is 
so  apt  to  mislead  us  ?  No  one,  I  answer,  need  to  be 
mislead,  if  he  attends  to  the  plain  instructions  of  the 
Bible  about  demons,  evil  spirits,  etc..  as  I  have  at- 
tempted to  show.  Had  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, not  spoken  of  common  events  in  the  common 
language  of  their  day,  how  could  they  have  been  un- 
derstood ?  And  to  have  corrected  all  the  false  notions 
of  people  and  their  false  language,  would  have  been 
an  endless  and  vain  task.  If  s[)eal<ing  of  demons  as 
they  sometimes  did,  be  found  fault  with,  why  not 
extend  it  to  other  things?     Why  did  our  Lord  speak 


AN     INQUIRY PART    III.  409 

of  tran=:iriii]jration  as  true,  and  allow  his  disciples  to  do 
it,  without  correcting  them.  See  John  ix.  1 — 3; 
Math.  xvi.  13,  14.  But  why  not  blame  our-elves, 
for  every  day  we  speak  in  the  common  languao;e  of 
our  day  and  not  according  to  the  truth  of  things. 
Most  people  would  smile  at  our  affectation  if  we  did 
not. 

James  ii.  19.  "Thou  believest  that  there  is  one 
God  ;  thou  doest  well  ;  the  demons  also  believe  and 
tremble."  James  wrote  to  beheving  Jews,  chap.  i.  1. 
And  it  is  obvious  frorn  the  context,  that  he  was  rea- 
soning against  some  of  them,  who  said  they  had  faith 
but  had  not  works  to  prove  it.  Here  he  reasons  with 
them  on  their  own  admitted  principles  concerning  the 
demons.  They  believed,  demons  were  the  souls  of 
wicked  men,  and  were  in  torm^ent  after  death.  To 
expose  their  false  profession,  and  convince  them  that 
it  was  vain,  James  says — "thou  believest  that  there 
is  one  God  ;  thou  doest  well,"  This  he  commends. 
But  he  adds — "  the  demons  also  believe,"  and  so  far 
they  are  equal  to  you.  But  the  demons  not  only  be- 
lieve, but  also  "tremble,"  and  their  faith  shows  itself 
by  their  works,  and  in  this  they  excel  you.  Your 
faith  does  not  produce  works,  but  theirs  do,  and  they 
condemn  you  on  your  own  principles.  The  demon's 
faith  is  not  dead,  but  yours  is  dead,  "  for  know,  O 
vain  man,  that  faith  wnthout  works  is  dead."  It  seems 
to  me  obvious,  that  James  is  not  here  teaching  or  ap- 
proving what  they  believed  about  demons,  but  refuting 
their  pretensions  to  faith,  from  their  own  opinions 
concerning  demjons.  He  does  not  admit  their  opinions 
true,  but  reasons  with  them  on  their  believing  them  to 
be  true.  He  said  they  did  w^ell  in  believing  "  that 
there  is  one  God."  But  he  does  not  say,  they  did 
well  in  believing  that  "  the  demons  also  believe  and 


410  AN   INQUIRY PART  III. 

tremble."     But  why  not  commend  them  for  this  if  it 
was  true  ? 

Phis  view  of  the  passatre,  appears  to  me  agreeable 
to  the  context,  for  in  the  remainder  of  the  chapter 
James  goes  on  to  refute  their  false  profession  by 
showing  that  Abraham's  faith  })roved  itself  by  works. 
He  also  siiows  that  Rahab's  faith  was  proved  by 
works,  anrl  concludes  thus — "for  as  the  body  without 
the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also.'' 
Bin  let  it  be  supposed,  that  James  here  readies,  that 
demons  are  evil  spirits,  or,  the  souls  of  dead  men, 
what  then?  It  follows  that  they  believe,  and  that 
they  also  tremble  in  a  future  state.  But  it  also  fol- 
lows, that  tliis  is  the  only  text  in  the  Bible  where 
these  opinions  are  taught.  Where  else  do  we  read  of 
any  kind  of  demons  either  believing  or  trembling  in 
such  a  state  ?  This  is  not  even  said  of  the  demons 
which  were  supposed  to  possess  men  and  torment 
them.  And  if  any  demons  had  cause  to  tremble,  cer- 
tainly they  had.  But  I  do  not  find,  that  they  were 
even  threatened  with  any  punishment,  either  in  this 
world  or  a  future  state.  Is  not  this  a  strange  admis- 
sion, if  demons  were  the  souls  of  wicked  men  ?  And 
that  this  has  been  the  belief  of  heathen,  Jews,  and 
many  Christians,  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  in- 
vestigation. But  I  ask,  did  Jews  or  Christians,  de- 
rive such  views  from  divine  revelation  respecting  the 
torment  of  demons  or  the  souls  of  the  wicked  after 
death  ?  If  from  the  Bible,  in  what  place  shall  I  find 
it  ?  If  they  did  not  derive  them  from  the  heathen, 
all  must  admit,  it  was  not  for  the  want  of  opportunity, 
for  such  opinions  prevailed  among  then. 

If  James  in  this  jiassage,  teaches  the  common   no- 
tions about  demons,  that  they  arc  evil  spirits,  or  the 


AN   INQUIRY PART  HI.  411 

souls  of  wicked  men,  who  can  reconcile  his  teaching 
with  llie  other  sacred  writers  in  the  many  passages 
which  have  come  under  our  consideration.  We  liave 
seen,  tliat  they  denounce  all  demons,  and  declare 
them  to  he  nothings  in  the  world.  And  not  until  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  did  ihe  Jews  learn  that  demons 
were  anything  else.  Before  this,  they  worshipped 
demons,  and  -for  which  God  reproved  and  punished 
them.  But  not  a  hint  is  given,  that  demons  were 
real  beings  of  any  kind,  or  could  do  good  or  evil  to 
any  one.  By  whose  authority  then  were  demons 
transformed  into  real  beings,  evil  beings,  and  that  a 
whole  legion  of  them  could  enter  into  one  man  ?  And 
must  we  believe  on  one  solitary  verse  in  the  Epistle 
of  James,  that  demons  believed  and  trembled.  Before 
1  can  do  this.  I  must  see  hovv^  my  views  of  tliis  verso 
can  he  proved  erroneous. 

In  the  preceding  examination  we  have  seen,  that 
demons  and  unclean  spirits  express  the  same  thing. 
A  few  texts  remain,  where  the  last  phrase  occurs,  in 
which  demons  are  not  mentioned.  A  few  words  on 
them  may  suffice.  Mark  i.  27  ;  iii.  27,  and  Luke  vii. 
21,  we  may  pass  without  any  remarks.  Tlie  others  I 
shall  very  briefly  notice.  In  Acts  v.  16,  it  is  said,  that 
among  other  sick  folks,  brought  to  be  cured  by  the 
Apostles,  were  brought  some,  "  vexed  with  unclean 
spirits;  and  they  were  healed  every  one."  If  unclean 
spirits  mean  demons  here,  as  in  other  texts,  nothing  is 
said  about  casting  them  out,  but  that  tlie  persons 
'•  were  healed."  And  is  not  this  a  confirmation,  that 
casting  out  demons  and  healing  persons  supposed  to 
be  possessed  witli  demon's,  only  meaut  the  same  thing? 
^Vhen  the  person  was  healed,  it  was  concluded  that 
the  demon  had  gone  out  of  him;     Why  ?   because  the 


412  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

disease  was  ascribed  to  the  demon  as  tlie  cause  of  it, 
and  both  went  out  together. 

In  Acts  viii.  5 — 8  we  are  told,  Philip  went  to  Sa- 
maria, preached  there,  and  wrought  miracles.  "  Un- 
clean spirits,  crying  with  loud  voice  came  out  of  many 
that  were  possessed  with  them  :  and  many  taken  with 
palsies,  and  that  were  lame  were  healed."  The 
unclean  spirits  here,  mean  demons  as  in  other  texts, 
from  the  persons  being  said  to  be  possessed  with 
them.  And  when  it  is  said  they  cried  out,  we  ought 
to  undei'stand  the  persons  cried  out  as  seen  above, 
and  not  the  demons  or  unclean  spirits.  No  further 
remarks  seem  to  be  necessary  on  this  text. 

Acts  xvi.  16 — 19.  Please  read  the  passage.  It  is 
said,  "  a  certain  damsel  was  possessed  with  a  spirit  of 
divinatioii,"  or,  of  Pytljon  as  in  the  margin  ;  that 
is  of  Apollo.  There  were  many  in  the  heathen  world 
who  practised  divination,  and  some  were  supposed  to 
have  in  them  demons  which  prophesied.  They  were 
called  Pythons,  from  Apollo  Pythias,  one  of  tlie  prin- 
cipal prophesying  demons,  whose  priestess  at  Delj)hi, 
was  from  him  called  Pythia.  This  damsel  was  sup- 
posed to  be  inspired  with  the  spirit  of  this  dead  man. 
The  account  of  her,  is  told  in  the  language  of  the 
times,  and  as  the  heathen  would  have  spoken  about 
her.  Some  have  thought  that  Apollo  Pythias  refers 
to  Python,  a  famous  ventriloquist,  and  that  this  damsel 
deceived  people  by  her  practice  of  this  art.  Others, 
derive  the  name  from  ^^  pet  en  serpent,  which  was  an 
animal  partiruJarly  respected  by  the  heathen  in  their 
divinations,  as  being  to  them  an  en)l)lem  or  represen- 
tative of  the  solar  light,  or,  Apollo,  their  divining 
God."  'V\\v  damsel  referred  to  in  this  passage,  like 
all  the   heathen    prophetesses,  seemed   under  their  in- 


AN    INQUIRY PART    111.  413 

spiration  to  be  mad,  and  this  is  countenanced  by  her 
following  Paul  for  many  days,&:c.  She  was  probably 
a  fortune-teller,  and  imposed  on  people  by  the  art  of 
ventriloquism,  for  by  this  art  the  woman  at  En  dor  im- 
posed on  Saul.  Such  persons  were  said  to  have  a 
familiar  spirit  and  consulted  with  the  dead,  and  one  of 
them  divined  to  Saul  the  issue  of  an  impending  battle. 
But  all  such  impostors  were  condemned  and  banished 
the  land  of  Israel. 

Acts  xix.  13 — 17.  Please  also  read  this  passage, 
and  observe,  that  the  facts  related  took  place  at  Ephe- 
sus,  a  place  famous  for  using  curious  arts,  and  having 
hooks  relating  to  them.  See  verses  18,  19.  Verse 
1'2  says,  "evil  spirits"  v/ent  out  of  some,  by  parts  of 
Paul's  clothing  being  brought  to  them.  Among  the 
users  of  the  curious  arts  at  Ephesus,  there  were 
'•  certain  vagabond  Jews,  exorcists,"  and  Sceva  a 
Jew,  had  seven  sons  who  appear  to  have  been  of  the 
number.  They  attempted  to  expel  demons  and  cure 
diseases  by  charms,  scents,  the  sounds  of  certain 
Hebrew  words,  &£c."  If  you  exorcise,  says  Justin 
against  Trypho  in  the  name  of  any  of  your  kings,  or 
just  men,  or  prophets,  or  patriarchs,  none  of  the  de- 
mons will  obey  you  :  but  if  indeed  any  of  you  exor- 
cise by  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob,  probably  he  will  obey  youV 
The  sons  of  Sceva,  finding  Paul  more  successful  in 
casting  out  evil  spirits  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  attempt- 
ed doing  it  in  the  same  way,  and  on  a  man  who  was 
deranged.  But  the  evil  spirit,  or  the  madness  in  the 
man  we  should  think  led  him  to  say — •'  Jesus  I  know 
and  Paul  I  know  but  who  are  ye."  But  how  did  he 
know  all  this?  Probably  by  Paul's  success  in  casting 
out  evil  spirits  in  Jesus  name,  or  restoring  madmen  to 
a  sound  mind,  while  the  attempts  of  the  sons  of  Scev* 
27 


414  AN  INQUIRY PART  III. 

failed.  That  this  man  was  insane,  and  furious,  is 
evident  from  his  treatment  of  these  impostors  :  see  v. 
16.  The  account  ends  without  informing  us  whether 
Paul  healed  this  maniac,  but  we  are  told — "  Many 
that  believed  came,  and  confessed,  and  showed  their 
deeds.  Many  of  them  also  which  used  curious  arts 
brought  their  books  together,  and  burned  them  before 
all  men  :  And  they  counted  the  price  of  them,  and 
found  it  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver.  So  mightily 
grew  the  word  of  God  and  prevailed." 

We  have  now  finished  our  examination  of  the  Bible 
on  the  subject  of  demons,  evil  spirits,  etc.  etc.  We 
are  not  aware,  that  a  single  text  has  been  overlooked 
in  our  inv^estigation.  Our  object  has  been,  to  ascer- 
tain vvhat  the  Scriptures  teach  us,  and  how  we  have 
succeeded  must  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  reader. 
Our  investigation  has  been  brief,  for  our  limits  did 
not  permit  us  to  enlarge.  But  enough  has  been  said 
to  lead  the  reader  to  reflection,  and  furtlier  examina- 
tion of  the  subject.  Much  has  been  left  out  which 
w^e  wished  inserted,  and  may  be  used  should  our 
attention  be  a2;ain  called  to  the  discussion  of  it. 

In  confirmation  of  the  views  we  have  advanced,  a 
number  of  facts  might  be  added.  But  I  shall  only 
name  a  few  of  them  in  a  brief  manner.  Several  of 
them  have  been  hinted  at  already  in  the  course  of  our 
remarks.  1.  The  doctrine  of  demons  was  not  intro- 
duced among  the  Jews  by  divine  revelation,  but  by 
the  lieathen  that  surrounded  them.  It  came  first 
among  them  by  their  sacrificing  to  their  gods,  as  we 
have  seen  from  passages  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  this,  that  it  had  a 
heathen  origin  among  them,  and  when  introduced, 
was  condemned  by  God  in  their  Scriptures.  j\o  Old 
Testament  writer  gives  the  least  countenance  to  the 


AN  1NQ,UIRY — ^PART  III.  415 

doctrine  of  demons,  or  the  worship  of  ihem  ;  nor,  is  a 
single  hint  given,  that  they  were  real  beings,  or  had 
ever  been  so.  And  as  to  ])ersons  being  possessed 
with  demons,  not  a  vestige  of  evidence  respecting  this 
is  to  be  found  in  all  the  Old  Testament.  It  begins 
and  ends,  without  any  allusion  to  such  a  thing.  The 
case  of  Saul  is  no  exception  to  this,  as  has  been  seen 
above.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  performed 
miraculous  cures  on  persons,  but  not  one  of  them  is 
ever  said — "  cast  out  demons."  Nor  in  Moses  laws, 
laws,  were  any  rites  of  purification  prescribed,  for 
such  as  had  demons  cast  out  of  them,  although  this 
was  done  for  persons  cured  of  the  leprosy  and  other 
disorders.  Besides  the  Old  Testament  prophets  pre- 
dicted, the  miraculous  cures  which  the  Messiah  should 
perform  when  he  appeared.  See  Isaiah  chap.  35  and 
other  passages.  But  not  one  of  them  intimates,  that 
he  was  to  cast  out  demons,  evil  spirits,  or  the  ghosts 
of  dead  men.  But  how  could  they  overlook  this,  if 
the  possessions  in  the  New  Testament,  were  real  pos- 
sessions of  such  beino^s,  for  their  castinor  them  out  is 
represented  as  the  most  wonderful  work  of  Christ  ? 

2.  It  is  also  a  fact,  that  the  doctrine  of  demons,  and 
men  being  possessed  with  them,  was  not  a  new  reve- 
lation given  to  the  world  by  the  New  Testament 
writers.  We  read  of  demons  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  of  no  one  being  possessed  with  them.  But,  when 
many  read  the  New  Testament  concerning  possessions 
of  demons,  they  conclude  that  this  must  be  a  new 
revelation  from  God  to  mankind.  This  is  a  great 
mistake,  for  in  Egypt,  Chaldea,  Greece,  and  other 
heathen  countries,  demons  were  well  known,  and  also 
of  persons  being  possessed  with  them.  In  India  this 
was  also  well  known  in  the  days  of  Christ.  And  all 
must  here    notice,  that   the    New  Testament   never 


416  AN    INQ^UIRY PART    llf, 

speaks  of  demons,  or  of  persons  beino-  possessed  with 
them,  as  a  new  or  strange  thing.  They  are  intro- 
duced, and  spoken  about  like  other  common  things  of 
the  day.  It  is  cot  demons,  or  the  possession  of  them, 
that  is  spoken  about  with  surprise,  but  the  Saviour's 
pasting  of  them  out.  This  is  mentioned  as  a  most 
extraordinary  event,  for  it  was  never  done  before  as 
he  performed  it.  Before  his  day,  demons  were  com- 
mon, were  cast  out,  or  pretended  to  be  cast  out  of 
persons,  as  could  easily  be  shown  by  abundant  testi- 
mony. And  this  was  even  done  in  Judea  in  the  days 
of  Solomon,  and  down  to  the  days  of  Josephus  if  he 
may  be  credited.  And  that  •  other  persons  cast  out 
demons,  or  cured  persons  supposed  to  be  possessed 
with  them,  there  is  abundant  testimony  in  proof  of  it 
were  it  disputed. 

3.  It  is  also  a  fact,  that  demons  were  considered 
the  ghosts,  or  the  souls  of  dead  wicked  men.  The 
quotations  from  Parkhurst,  Enfield,  and  others  abun- 
dantly prove  this.  But,  do  either  Old  or  New  Tes- 
tament writers  sanction  this  as  true  ?  Nothing  like 
this  is  to  be  found  in  their  writings.  Nor,  do  they 
describe  them  as  real  beings  of  any  kind  whatever. 
But  admit  them  to  be  the  souls  of  dead  wicked  men, 
and  what  follows  ?  It  follows,  that  the  souls  of 
wicked  men  in  ancient  times,  were  not  sent  to  hell  as 
many  have  believed,  but  took  up  their  abode  in  the 
bodies  of  men  to  torment  them.  Souls  surely  could 
not  be  in  two  such  different  places  at  once?  And  if 
it  is  said,  they  carried  their  hell  about  with  them 
wherever  they  went,  is  to  tell  us,  that  hell  changes 
with  the  times,  and  any  new  use  which  men  may 
have  for  it.  But  no  such  notions  are  to  be  found  in 
the  Bible,  for  this  would  make  it  a  book  which 
changes  with  the  changing  opinions  of  men. 


AN  INQUIRY PART   III.  417 

4.  Another  fact  is  certain,  that  we  never  read  in 
the  Scriptures,  of  the  souls  of  dead  good  men,  taking 
possession  of  any  persons,  whether  pious  or  profane. 
But  why  not  ?  Is  it  not  as  rational  to  conclude,  that 
good  men's  souls  would  do  thisj  as  the  souls  of  wicked 
men  ?  And  might  we  not  expect,  that  God  would  so 
far  permit  good  men's  souls  to  take  up  their  abode 
in  the  same  bodies  with  the  souls  of  wicked  men, 
as  to  counteract  their  evil  influence  upon  them?  It 
is  not  much  to  the  honor  of  God's  character  to  permit 
the  one,  without  also  permitting  the  other.  i\.nd  if 
this  was  admitted  as  true,  then  souls  both  good  and 
bad,  neither  go  to  hell  or  heaven  after  death,  but  sta}^ 
in  our  world  to  do  good  and  evil  to  mankind.  But 
will  people  in  our  day,  give  up  their  views  of  hell  or 
heaven  ?  One  of  the  two  must  be  done,  for  to  believe 
the  popular  opinions  about  demons,  and  also  about 
hell  and  heaven  seems  to  be  impossible,  unless  we 
are  determined  to  credit  the  most  palpable  contradic- 
tions. 

5.  But  it  is  also  a  fact,  that  the  Scripture  writers 
do  not  speak  as  men  have  done,  and  some  do  now, 
about  the  souls  of  either  good  or  bad  men  after  death. 
The  heathen  sent  the  souls  of  wicked  men  to  Tartarus 
after  death,  and  the  souls  of  good  men  to  Elysium. 
But  where  did  they  learn  such  notions  ?  Not  from 
the  Bible,  but  from  their  own  vain  imaginations. 
The  Jews,  and  others,  sent  all  good  and  bad  to  sheol 
or  hades.  But  some  divided  this  place  into  two 
parts,  the  one  for  the  good  and  the  other  for  the 
wicked.  But  does  the  Bible  do  this  ?  No,  is  it  not 
rather  an  alteration,  or  improvement  on  the  heathen 
opinions  respecting  their  Tartarus  and  Elysium  ? 
And  pray,  wdiat  great  improvement  have  modern 
Christians  made  on  the  ancient  heathens,  for  their 


418  AN  INQ,C7IRY PART  III. 

hell  is  pretty  much  the  same  as  theirs.  Some 
make  a  heaven  for  food  souls  before  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  compounded  of  heathen  opinions  and 
Scripture  statements  of  immortality  to  man  promised 
after  it.  But,  if  we  are  to  leave  behind  us  the  Bible 
in  one  thing,  and  embrace  heathen  opinions,  at  what 
point  are  we  to  stop  ?  Why  not  believe  in  their  doctrine 
of  demons  in  all  its  breadth  and  length.  And  why 
not  advocate,  that  persons  in  our  day  are  possessed 
with  demons  as  in  ancient  times?*  Why  should  we 
not  say,  that  a  wild  maniac  has  a  legion  of  demons  in 
him  ? 

We  intended  to  have  stated  more  facts,  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  views  we  have  advanced  ;  and,  also  noticed 
some  objections,  which  might  be  made  against  them. 
But  we  must  close  for  the  present.  In  conclusion  we 
remark,  that  we  have  with  some  care^  examined  the 
Scriptures  to  know,  what  is  meant  by  the  terms  satan, 
devil,  and  demons.  We  have  stated  the  result  of  our 
examination,  and  rise  from  it  with  the  fullest  convic- 
tion, that  the  common  opinions  entertained  on  these 
subjects  have  no  foundation  in  the  Bible,  liet  a  false 
idea  be  attached  to  words  in  one  country  and  age,  and 
however  superstitious  it  may  be,  it  will  descend  to  pos- 
terity ;  let  it  once  take  root  in  men's  minds,  and  who 
can  calculate  to  what  extent  it  will  grow,  and  to  how 
many  generations  it  will  descend  as  an  inheritance  to 
their  children  ? 

God  has  given  to  men  a  revelation  of  his  will,  to  guide 
them  both  as  to  faith  and  practice.  Their  wisdom  and 
happiness  consists  in  holding  fast  the  faithful  word  and 
obeying  it,  without  alteration  or  addition.  Who  ever 
altered  or  added  to  it,  and  thereby  promoted  the  glory 
of  God,  his  own  good,  and  the  happiness  of  mankind  ? 


INDEX 


OF  PARTICULAR  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Page. 

Page. 

Gen.  iii. 

19,  2l3 

Matt 

ix.  32—35 

397 

xxvi.  21 

35 

xi.  18 

389 

Deut.  xvii.  7 

363 

xii.  22—31 

398 

Numb.  xxii.  22,  32 

363 

xii.  31,32 

287 

Deut.  xxxii.  17 

360 

xiii.  36— 42 

J  36 

,271 

Judges  ix.  23 

366 

XV.  21^29 

402 

1  Samuel  xxix.  4 

37 

xvi.  23 

98 

xvi. 

366 

xvii.  14-22 

400 

2  Samuel  xix.  22 

38 

xviii.  8 

335 

xxiv.'l 

41 

xix.  27—29 

296. 

1  Kings  V.  4 

38 

xxiv.  and  xxv. 

136,250, 

xi.  14—25 

39 

252 

,308 

1  Chron.  xxi.  1 

40 

xxviii.  20 

277 

Ezra  iv.  6 

42 

Mark  i.  23—29 

401 

Job  chap.  i.  and  ii. 

43 

iii.  23 

99 

xxxi.  33 

22 

iii.  22—28 

401 

Psalms  IX.  5 

234 

iv.  15 

157 

"      Ixxi.  13 

61 

V.  1—21 

404 

"      xc.  2 

349 

vii.  24—31 

402 

"      xcvi.  5,  6 

361 

ix.  14—30 

400 

"      cvi.  37 

362 

Luke 

iv.  35,  36 

401 

"      cix. 

61 

viii.  2,  3 

394 

"      cxxxvi. 

225 

26—40 

404 

Isaiah  xiii.  21 

362 

ix.  37—43 

400 

"     xxxiii.  14 

234 

X.  18 

100 

"     Ixv.  11 

363 

xi.  14^27 

397 

Jer.  xvii.  4 

233 

xiii.  6 

101 

xxiii.  39,40 

233 

xxii.  31,  32 

99 

Daniel  xii 

234,  250 

xxii.  3 

104 

Hosea  vi.  7 

23 

John 

vi.70 

117 

Zach.  iii.  1,  2 

62 

viii.  44 

124 

"      xiii.  2 

369 

X.  20,  21 

388 

Mai.  i.  4 

234 

xii.  31 

167 

Matt.  iv.  1—12      24 

146,  392 

xiii.  2,  27 

117 

104 

"     vi.  13 

162 

xiv.  30 

167 

«     viii.  16 

894 

xvi.  8—12 

167 

»    Yiii.28— 34 

404 

Acts 

Y.  3 

1% 

i^ 


420 


INDEX. 


Acts  viii.  5—18 

412 

1  Tim.  i.  17,  20 

110,  249 

"     X.  38 

138 

"      ii.  13.  14 

23,29 

"     xiii.  10 

135 

"      iii.  11 

116 

«     xvi.  16—19 

402 

"      iv.  1 

387 

"     xix.  15—17 

413 

"      V.  15 

113 

«     xvii.  18 

386 

2  Tim.  ii.  24—26 

141 

"     XX  vi.  18 

107 

"      iii.  3,  6 

117,  141 

Rom.  V.  12—14 

23 

Titus  i.  2 

266 

"     vii.  T-'ll 

27 

"      ii.  3 

16 

"     xvi.  20 

108 

Heb.  ii.  5,  14,  15 

132,286 

1  Cor.  V.  5 

108 

"     Xi.2,o 

337, 286 

"       vii.  5 

110 

"     ix.  26 

280 

"       X.  11,20,  21, 

280,  384 

"     xi.  3 

265 

"       chap.  XV 

23,  261 

James  i.  15 

30 

2  Cor.  ii.  11 

110 

"     ii.  19 

409 

"       iv.  4,  17,  IS 

171,  263 

"     iv.  7 

142 

"       chap.  V 

263 

1  John  iii   8—10 

129 

"       xi.  3, 14        22 

,165,  111 

Jude,  verses  7,  9, 

13          143, 

"       xii.  7 

112 

335,  337 

Eph.  i.  21 

287 

Ilev.  ii.  9,  10,  13, 

24          113, 

"     ii.2,  7 

171,  253 

145,  114 

"     iii.  21 

265 

"     iii.  9 

.  .   113 

"     iv.  27 

139 

"     xviii.  2 

386 

"     vi.  11 

139 

"     ix.  20 

386 

Colossians  i.  26 

.     254 

"     xii.  9 

158 

1  Tliess.  iii.  5 

164 

"     xiv.  11 

342 

2  Thess.  i.  9 

323 

"     xvi.  14 

386 

"       ii.  9,  IS 

112 

ERRATA. 

Page  39,  8  line  from  bottom,  for  "the  in"  read  "in  the." 
Page  42,  in  12t]i  line  from  the  bottom,  for  xxvi.  1.  read  xxi  ^  1. 
Page  267,  4th  line  from  top,  for  "  finite,"  read  "  infinite." 


lyU 


« 


